Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CROMARTY FIRTH PORT AUTHORITY CONFIRMATION BILL (By Order)

Read the Third time and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

£Sterling (Value)

Mr. Skinner: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what, on the basis of the General Index of Retail Prices, is the purchasing power of the £sterling now, taking it as 100p on 18th June 1970.

Mr. Carter: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, taking the £sterling as 100p on 18th June 1970, what is its current value to the latest possible date based on the General Index of Retail Prices.

Mr. Kaufman: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what, on the basis of the General Index of Retail Prices, is the purchasing power of the £sterling now, taking it as 100p on 18th June 1970.

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. John Nott): Since 18th June 1970 the personal disposable income of the British people—and that is the best available measure of their true purchasing power—has increased one and a half times as fast as prices. The fall in the value of the pound from 100p to 78½ p in May 1973 must be related to the rise in pensions and wages, and the reductions in taxation, over the same period to provide a meaningful picture.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister proud of those figures? Does he not realise that they are a fitting testimony to the pledges that were given at the General Election that the Tories would be able to look after the people's money better than the Labour Government did? Will he encourage his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer not to solve the problem in the same manner as he attempted by building society subsidies to get over the 10 per cent. interest rate? He will not get rid of the real problem facing this country by the Walter-Mitty-like sequences in which he was involved when he jumped out of the bath and told the Prime Minister that he had a plan to solve it.

Mr. Nott: The Government have every reason to be proud of their economic record. The standard of living of the British people has already risen far more in the three years of Conservative Government than it did in the whole six years of the Labour administration.

Mr. McCrindle: I agree that the purchasing power of the pound is very important, but is not it true that so, also, is the proportion of each pound that is retained, after tax, by the average wage earner? When being asked, in the future, to give the present values of the purchasing power of the pound, should not my hon. Friend also be asked to give the other figure alongside it?

Mr. Nott: I felt that on this occasion it would help to give hon. Members of the Opposition a simple explanation of the difference between the cost of living and the standard of living. The real disposable income of the British people has grown at a far faster rate during the period of the present Government than it did during the period of the Labour administration.

Mr. Carter: Is the Minister aware that while the fall in the internal purchasing power of the pound is quite dramatic, the fall in its external purchasing power is staggering? Is he aware that, since June 1970, against the franc the pound has depreciated by 20 per cent., against the mark by 30 per cent. and against the guilder by 25 per cent.? If this record is maintained, is the Minister aware that it will not be a question of how many


francs we get for a pound but how many pounds we have to exchange to get a franc?

Mr. Nott: There has been a general shift in the relationships of one currency to another. That is perfectly correct. But the present rates of other currencies may not persist, and we should not draw conclusions about the strength of sterling from recent movements in the exchange rate.

Mr. Tugendhat: Does my hon. Friend agree that the great successes of the motor industry based in the constituency of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter) owe much to the competitiveness which it has derived from the changing value of the pound?

Mr. Nott: Certainly. I agree with my hon. Friend. The competitive position of the motor industry, in relation to its exports, has been enhanced.

Mr. Kaufman: Is the Minister aware that the embarrassed obscurity with which he veiled his shameful admission that the purchasing power of the pound has fallen to 78½p under the present Government marks the death knell of official price control in this country, with Sir Arthur Cockfield of the Price Commission as chief undertaker? Is the Minister further aware that if the Government cling to office until the last humiliating moments, as they did in 1964, the value of the Tory pound will sink to 63p?

Mr. Nott: The hon. Gentleman will be interested in the recent National Institute review, which pointed out that the Government's counter-inflation policy had met with considerable success. It should be remembered that between November and May raw material prices rose eight times as fast as they did in the corresponding months of the last year of the Labour Government, and seasonal food prices rose half as fast again, yet the rise in retail prices was about the same in the two periods. That testifies to the success of our counter-inflation policy.

Mr. Powell: When has my hon. Friend known the NIESR to be right?

Mr. Nott: I have every hope that on this occasion the National Institute's more optimistic forecasts will prove correct.

Mr. Healey: Does the Minister of State agree that the increase in real disposable income to which he referred took place in the first two years the Government were in power entirely as a result of wage increases which the Government did their best to stop and that during the months since the wage freeze was introduced prices, as he has had to admit today, have been rising at the rate of 9 per cent. a year, but earnings have been rising at under 8 per cent.?

Mr. Nott: The right hon. Gentleman's statistics are not quite correct. As he says, during the standstill earnings were held back but, despite this, there was a further rise of 1½ per cent. in real personal disposable income per head in the fourth quarter of last year. As the National Institute's forecast seems to be figuring in the discussion on this occasion, I should say that it predicts—I hope that it will be correct—a further substantial rise in real disposable incomes this year.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: Does my hon. Friend agree that a most grotesque and vivid example of all the policies which have been advocated by hon. Members opposite is to be found in Chile, where the currency has depreciated by well over 100 per cent, in nine months?

Mr. Grimond: If the Government are really proud of this policy, they must be dangerously crazy. Are we not now in a state of statutory inflation, fed by the Government themselves? Does not the Minister agree that no free society has sustained a loss of value of its currency at this rate without having a first-rate political crisis?

Mr. Nott: It would be more easy to answer the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question if he could make a specific charge to which I could give a specific answer. I do not agree with his generalised criticism.

Exchange Rate

Dr. Gilbert: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a weekly series showing fluctuation of the £sterling against a weighted average of the United Kingdom's major trading partners.

Mr. Nott: No, Sir. The monthly changes in the effective exchange rate


are now being published in the Treasury's Economic Progress Report.

Dr. Gilbert: I am not surprised at that answer. Has the hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the fact that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter) remarked a few moments ago, the external value of the pound is falling even faster than the internal one? In the last six weeks it has been falling at the rate of about 1 per cent. a week. This must be added to the increase in world prices to which hon. Members opposite are always referring. The worst is yet to come.

Mr. Nott: As the hon. Gentleman himself said, I have answered that question. There has been a general shift in the relationship of one currency to another. This is still going on. Foreign exchange markets are unsettled. I do not think there is anything I can reasonably add to that.

Mr. Ridley: Could we not make a contribution to reducing the money supply and stabilising the value of the pound by cutting the grant to the National Institute of Economic and Social Research?

Mr. Nott: Perhaps I can answer the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question by asking him what exactly he means by "stabilising the rise" in the money supply. In the last month for which figures are available—I speak from memory—M1 rose by about ½ per cent. and M3 by around ¼ per cent. I cannot say that one month's figures are indicative of the trend, but I do not think that my hon. Friend's implied criticism is fair.

Mr. Healey: Will the Minister of State confirm the figures given in the Financial Times and The Times today, showing that since the Smithsonian agreement only 18 months ago there has been a devaluation of the pound of over 151 per cent., which is substantially more than the devaluation that occurred in 1967?

Mr. Nott: I do not think that the true situation can be compared. We live in an environment in which many of the principal currencies are floating. Moreover, unlike what happened in 1967, we are pursuing a policy of expansion. The previous Government pursued a policy of

stagnation. I have no doubt that the shift in currency relationships will improve the competitive position of British industry.

Mr. Coombs: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage rise in the cost of living can be attributed directly or indirectly to the floating of the £sterling in June, 1972, and subsequent exchange rate realignment.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): It is impossible to distinguish accurately the simultaneous effects of the sterling float and the recent sharp rises in world commodity prices. Nevertheless, it can be said that the rise in world commodity prices accounts for far more of the rise in import prices than the sterling float.

Mr. Coombs: What are the preconditions for returning to a stable sterling parity? How does my right hon. Friend view the prospects of a joint EEC float?

Mr. Jenkin: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has on many occasions stated the conditions on which we would be prepared to join the European float. We are studying the Commission's report on reserve pooling and related matters. The proposals my right hon. Friend put to our partners in the Community in March would have meant a greater step towards economic and monetary union than our partner countries were then prepared to accept.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Does the Minister realise that because of the floating of the pound—or shall we term it the devaluation of the pound?—members of Her Majesty's Forces in the EEC countries have had their income devalued by at least £3 a week? What will the Government do about these poor people, who are having to pay a great deal more for the goods they buy than they were before the floating of the pound?

Mr. Jenkin: While I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's figures, I acknowledge his point, and the Government have the matter under consideration.

Mr. Powell: How can the movement of a floating exchange rate be a cause of domestic inflation?

Mr. Jenkin: I should have thought it was evident to those of the meanest intelligence that the movement downwards of the exchange rate must put up, relatively, the domestic price of imports. As I am sure my right hon. Friend realises, the wholesale import prices of basic materials and fuel have risen by 20 per cent. in the past six months, and food import prices have risen by 20 per cent.–25 per cent. Only a very small part of that is due to the movement of the parity of the pound.

Mr. Healey: If I may contribute to the right hon. Gentleman's seminar for his right hon. Friend, may I ask whether the Minister agrees that, as import prices on a weighted average of foreign currencies have gone up by 15½ per cent. in the past 18 months, since the Smithsonian agreement, purely as a result of the devaluation of the pound, between 4 per cent. and 5 per cent. of the percentage increase in the cost of living must be attributable to that devaluation?

Mr. Jenkin: What the right hon. Gentleman says is totally untrue in that, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State said earlier, there have been many movement of currencies throughout the world. Simply to regard everything as part of the devaluation of the pound, as the right hon. Gentleman claims, is sheer nonsense.

Luncheon Vouchers

Mr. John Fraser: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now increase the tax-free concession for luncheon vouchers beyond 15p per day in view of the increased cost of restaurant meals and VAT.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I have noted the hon. Member's suggestion.

Mr. Fraser: What does that mean? Surely, with the rising cost of meals it is about time the concession was at least doubled.

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the purpose of the limit, which is to allow the tax-free issue of luncheon vouchers. At present, the 15p a day is equivalent to a tax-free addition to income of about £35 a year. As only some people receive this, there is some justification for keeping this figure within

bounds. The figure bears a reasonable relationship to an average cost of the subsidy of meals in works and office canteens. Perhaps that is not a bad comparison.

Mr. Joel Barnett: Is the Chief Secretary saying that the concession was unreasonable when it was first introduced?

Mr. Jenkin: I think it was probably on the generous side when it was first introduced.

Money Supply

Mr. Duffy: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is satisfied with the present volume of money supply.

Mr. Nott: During recent months there have been sharp changes in the rate of growth of the monetary aggregates, but our judgment of the underlying trend is that it is satisfactory in relation to the achievement of our overall economic objectives. My right hon. Friend keeps the situation under continual review.

Mr. Duffy: My Question relates to the volume of M3 and not monthly fluctuations in its rate of change. As the continued high rate of inflation—as the Government Front Bench was reminded by its back benchers on Tuesday—cannot be ascribed to wage costs at the moment, due to phases 1 and 2, or attributed wholly to the cost of imported raw materials, how far can the Chancellor be sure that it is not due to his own policies, especially his borrowing requirement and the present continued volume of money supply?

Mr. Nott: Our policies on money supply are aimed at ensuring that we maintain our current rate of expansion and, at the same time, that in no way does the growth of money supply increase the rate of inflation. These are the two objectives that we pursue, and I believe that we are pursuing them successfully.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the two objectives he has stated are not regarded by all of us as being totally compatible? Does he recall that when the prices and incomes policy was introduced we were told that one of its purposes was to enable monetary policy to become rather less exuberant than it had been before, without embarrassing side effects? 


Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the 19 per cent. rate of increase in MI during the last three-monthly period conforms to that objective?

Mr. Nott: I do not remember my right hon. Friend or any of my hon. Friends in the Treasury using the adjective "exuberant" about the money supply. There is no single correct indicator of the money supply. The monthly series for M1 tends to move erratically from month to month, but the faster growth of M1 in some recent months may reflect, in part, the more active use of funds previously held on deposit accounts.

Trade Figures

Mr. James Hamilton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is satisfied with his policy so far as its effect on the national trade figures is concerned; and if he will make a statement.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Anthony Barber): Yes, Sir, I think it is sensible to give maximum priority to economic growth, consistent with the achievement of an adequate trade balance in the medium term.

Mr. Hamilton: Does the Chancellor concede that at the present rate we could easily have a trade deficit of £1,800 million? If that is so, we are running into serious difficulties, and the so-called boom, which has not yet reached Scotland, will become a disaster over the whole country.

Mr. Barber: I do not accept the figures given by the hon. Gentleman. I make no apology for using the current account surplus to increase output and employment and to raise the living standards of the British people. I hope that the one thing that no hon. Member wants to do is to return to the economic stagnation that we had under the Labour Government.

Mr. Marten: Why has the rate of increase in our exports since we joined the Common Market fallen behind the rate of increase in our exports to Japan and America?

Mr. Barber: There are obviously many factors involved but I do not think anybody looking at the matter objectively expected us to achieve our full potential

of exports to the EEC within only a few months of joining.

Mr. Jay: We are now running the biggest balance of payments deficit since the war, even allowing for the invisibles surplus. How does the Chancellor propose to finance this deficit?

Mr. Barber: I would have thought that the right hon. Gentleman, with his experience as President of the Board of Trade, would have seen advantage for this country in the fact that during the first five months of this year our exports have been increasing, in volume terms, twice as fast as our imports.

Mr. Healey: Since the Chancellor refuses to answer the question by my right hon. Friend will he answer one from me? Will it remain his policy to finance the deficit by borrowing at second hand from foreigners through the public authorities?

Mr. Barber: If he looked at the level of our reserves and then took account of the amount that has been borrowed by public authorities, which is a reasonable thing to do, the right hon. Gentleman, if he wished to be objective and to portray the facts, would admit that this is not a significant factor.

Local Drug Trials (Doctors' Fees)

Mr. Pavitt: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will arrange with the manufacturers of pharmaceutical products to declare the names of doctors and details of amounts paid in respect of fees for participation in local drug trials.

Mr. Nott: No, Sir.

Mr. Pavitt: Will the Minister reconsider that decision? Is he aware that all of these fees are taxable and that there is a suspicion that some part of them represents drug sales promotion? Is he aware that the voluntary price regulation scheme of the Secretary of State for Social Services enables all these figures to be easily accessible? It would save doctors a lot of time if there were a centralised collection of them, so that doctors did not have to send in forms.

Mr. Nott: The hon. Member asked about this on 19th June and we have


since looked into it, but we have been unable to find evidence of such payments being made and the Department of Health and Social Security is unaware of such practice. If the hon. Member has a specific case in mind, perhaps he would let me know.

Tax Credits (Legislation)

Mr. Tom King: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to be able to introduce legislation on the tax credit system.

Mr. Horam: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the Government's present intentions as regards legislation on a tax credit system.

Mr. Barber: Until the Select Committee reports, the House will understand that I cannot add anything to what was said in the Green Paper.

Mr. King: My right hon. Friend will understand that there is reasonable impatience, in view of the obvious benefits that the scheme can bring, that it should be carried into legislation at the earliest possible date, and to consummate the wide-ranging reform of taxation that has been a feature of his term of office.

Mr. Barber: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments, but it would be as well if I were to leave the question of timing and any other matters of substance to be said after the Select Committee's report, which I hope will not be for too long.

Mr. Horam: Many of us on the Labour side do not share the relative euphoria expressed by the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King). The system as envisaged will help the rich and not the poor. It will make the position of many groups of the poor, such as the single-parent family, many pensioners, the sick and the unemployed, worse. It will make it more difficult to achieve a more progressive income tax system and will be wasteful, because it will eliminate claw-back. The only vestige of a benefit will arise from the £1,300 million of extra taxation achieved through the system.

Mr. Barber: The hon. Member has obviously not read the Green Paper recently or he would know that the proposals in it would give a positive

social benefit in cash to millions of hard-pressed families—particularly those with children. The proposals would increase the income of between 3 million and 4 million pensioners and relieve hundreds and thousands of people of the need to claim supplementary benefit. These proposals will be simpler and easier for people to understand and fairer than the present system of tax allowances. They will also lead to considerable savings in civil servants.

Mr. William Clark: Any Labour Member who wants to know what the tax credits will or will not do would be better advised to await the report of the Select Committee, because obviously we are talking in a vacuum. It is obvious not only that the hon. Member has not read the Green Paper but also that he cannot possibly have read the report.

Mr. Barber: I entirely agree.

Mr. Joel Barnett: I, too, agree, and I hope that my hon. Friend would not have read the report. Equally, I hope that the Chancellor will not wish to mislead the House by suggesting that large numbers of pensioners and others will benefit, because they will benefit only if he finds the £1,300 million.

Mr. Barber: It comes a little strange from the hon. Member to talk about tax cuts—

Mr. Barnett: Who was talking about tax cuts?

Mr. Barber: —or of finding money in order to provide benefits—

Mr. Healey: Answer the question.

Mr. Barber: —finding money to provide the wherewithal for the tax credit scheme which, in part, will replace certain aspects of the income tax scheme. Under the Labour Government it would clearly have been impossible to find the means to finance these benefits. Under this Government, which has already reduced taxation by £4,000 million, it will be possible to finance the tax credit scheme.

Income Tax

Mr. William Price: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money was collected from income tax during the last 12-month period for which


figures are available and what was the total for 1969–70.

Mr. Nott: In the financial year 1969–70 income tax receipts represented 12·3 per cent. of the gross national product and amounted to £4,907 million. In the financial year ended 5th April 1973 the percentage had fallen to 11·9 per cent. of gross national product and amounted to £6,477 million. For the 12 months ended 31st May 1973 the figure was £6,577 million.

Mr. Price: How does the Minister square that statement with the claim that people are paying less income tax under the Tories? How does he also square it with what the Chancellor was saying only a moment ago? Is it not clear that the Government are taking more tax off the working people of this country than any Government in our history, and will the Chancellor stand up sometime and tell us what he is doing with it?

Mr. Nott: What the hon. Member says is not correct. I give him one example. In 1969–70 taxes on personal income represented 22·7 per cent. of wages and salaries. By 1972–73 we had reduced tax on personal income to 20·9 per cent. of wages and salaries. The proportion of indirect taxation related to the gross national product has also fallen.

Mr. Trew: Surely what matters is not the amount of tax collected but the rate of taxation? Is it not a remarkable coincidence that under Labour Governments tax rates rise and under Conservative Government they fall?

Mr. Nott: I entirely agree. If the rates of tax in force at the last General Election were still in force today the British people would be paying £4,000 million more than they are.

Mr. Brian Walden: Why, in spite of my constant pleas, does the Minister only ever talk about tax when he talks about what the Government take from the British people? Why does he not refer to the unavoidable charges that have been imposed on the people by the Government? Is the Minister intending to mislead the House to the extent of saying that the amount coming in does not matter, that the only thing that matters is the rate? Is that not palpable nonsense? Is it not obvious that if the base

figure rises and more money comes in the rate does not have to be so high?

Nr. Nott: It is not palpable nonsense for the British taxpayer. If the rates had stayed the same as they were when we came to office people would be paying £4,000 million a year more in taxation than they are, so the rates are highly relevant. On the first part of the question, taking into account all the charges referred to by the hon. Member, adjusting for inflation and making all the other adjustments that he would wish, since June 1970 the real net income of the family with two children on about half the average industrial earnings has increased by 4·5 per cent. a year compared with 2·5 per cent. a year under the previous Labour Government.

Single Person Taxation (Cohabitation)

Sir J. Langford-Holt: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the case, details of which have been sent to him, where a man and woman living together are regarded by the Department of Health and Social Security as man and wife but are regarded by the Treasury as single persons for tax purposes, whether he will take steps to see that these people are treated by the Inland Revenue for tax purposes in the same way as they are treated for social security purposes.

Mr. Nott: It would not be possible or desirable, in a tax system which applies to many millions of taxpayers. for tax inspectors to conduct detailed investigation into couples' private affairs. These same arguments do not apply under the supplementary benefits system. which is designed to meet individual cases of need.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Does not my hon. Friend agree that it is absolute nonsense for one Department to regard people as being socially together and the other Department to regard them as being socially apart—for them to be regarded by his Department as being economically apart and the second Department as being economically together? Will he ask his right hon. Friend to re-examine the whole question?

Mr. Nott: Different considerations apply in the two cases. Supplementary benefits aim at the specific relief of


need, and must take into account individual circumstances and the resources available to the individuals. The income tax personal allowances, however, do not directly reflect need. Their purpose is to graduate liabilities according to a very broad range of categories related to family circumstances. They are not the same thing.

Mr. Dalyell: What are the detailed investigations that are necessary in the one case?

Mr. Nott: I was referring to the natural inquiries that the Supplementary Benefits Commission makes before it provides supplementary benefits to a cohabitating couple.

Mr. Brian Walden: Must it not be an injustice that a woman can be knocked off supplementary benefit because she is living with a man—it being assumed that the man is supporting her—and yet the man cannot make any claim on the Inland Revenue for her support? Surely the Government are trying to have the argument both ways.

Mr. Nott: I cannot answer for the system used by the Supplementary Benefits Commission. That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. In the tax system, which deals with many millions of taxpayers, it would not be practicable for tax inspectors to make the sort of inquiries into people's private lives and habits that the hon. Member seems to wish.

Value Added Tax

Mr. Biffen: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions have been held or are in prospect with M. Henri Simonet of the European Commission concerning the future of zero rates of British value added tax after 1975.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor and my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary had a useful discussion with M. Simonet when he visited London in April and there have since been further discussions between M. Simonet and United Kingdom officials.

Mr. Biffen: What, if any, indication has been received from the Commission

about zero rates of value added tax? Will my right hon. Friend reflect that many of us, even though we be possessed of only the meanest intelligence, believe that the authority of the House turns upon the test of ultimate sovereign control over rights of taxation, and that we wish to be assured that that authority will remain undiminished?

Mr. Jenkin: I certainly would not put my hon. Friend in the category to which he referred. He will recall that under the European Communities Act there can be no question of additional taxation being charged without legislation in the House, and there can be no question of the Community's agreeing on a harmonised VAT, whether or not it involved the ending of zero rating, without a unanimous vote of all the members. That position is unchanged. I understand that the directive allows the continuance of zero rating for the time being.

Mr. Heffer: As Commissioners of the European Commission seem to enjoy coming to Britain rather than answering questions in the European Parliament—[An HON. MEMBER: "Assembly."]—in the European Assembly, does the Chancellor know whether the gentleman referred to in the Question is likely to answer questions from the British delegation at that Assembly on the important matter of zero rating?

Mr. Jenkin: I cannot foretell, but there would obviously be a better chance of his answering questions if the hon. Gentleman were there to ask them.

Mr. Marten: May I put the question more simply than my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) did? As of today, can we or can we not extend the area of zero rating without offending the rules of the Common Market?

Mr. Jenkin: As of today, if we chose to put down an amendment to the Finance Bill, I am certain that could be done.

Mr. Joel Barnett: Will the Chief Secretary now give us a clear assurance that the Chancellor either has told or will tell the Commissioner that under no circumstances will he agree to anything other than zero rating of food?

Mr. Jenkin: We have made it abundantly clear to the Commission and


to our partners that we regard the zero-rating element of the value added tax as of the utmost social benefit—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer"]—and I am confident that in the years ahead our partners will appreciate the truth of that in their circumstances.

High-Income Taxpayers

Mr. Atkinson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the total number of United Kingdom taxpayers with an income of £5,000 per year and above.

Mr. Nott: The estimated number for 1973–74 is about 625,000, counting married couples as one unit.

Mr. Atkinson: Does not that answer vividly demonstrate the British unfair society, in that the number of people earning more than £5,000 a year must now be well above 1 million, if the number is calculated by the number of luxury motor cars, luxury houses, yachts, expensive meals and all the other trimmings of expense accounts and other arrangements? Do not these matters clearly demonstrate that there is now massive tax evasion? What are the Government prepared to do about it?

Mr. Nott: The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong. If houses, yachts and other items are given out by firms to their employees they are taxable as emoluments of the employee. They are taxable just as much as cash received. The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Can the printers who print HANSARD and the Votes be added to that number?

Mr. Nott: It is a long-standing practice of the House that it does not discuss the tax affairs of individuals.

Economic Growth

Mr. Knox: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his most recent estimate of the rate of growth.

Mr. Barber: I believe that the economy is continuing to grow in line with the Budget forecast, which was for an annual rate of 5 per cent. over the 18 months to the first half of 1974. The latest provisional national accounts show that this

is, broadly, the rate that we have been achieving since the second half of 1971.

Mr. Knox: Is my right hon. Friend aware that industry, discounting some jeremiahs in the City, consider it important that the economy should continue to grow at a fast rate? Will he assure the House that if there is any sign of our rate of growth slackening off he will take the necessary measures to ensure that the rate continues at 5 per cent.?

Mr. Barber: I have no intention of anticipating any action either way at any time. We discussed this matter at yesterday's meeting of the National Economic Development Council. I can assure my hon. Friend that the council took the view—that is, both sides of industry—that it was desirable that we should continue with the growth rate that we are now achieving.

Mr. Healey: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the estimate given by the NEDO study group, which was published in this morning's papers—namely, that it will not be possible to maintain a growth rate of even 3½ per cent. to 4 per cent. in the longer run unless action is taken quickly to remove certain bottlenecks?

Mr. Barber: At yesterday's discussion with the NEDC it was the unanimous view of both sides—that is, the trade union movement as well as employers' organisations—that although some constraints and bottlenecks are now appearing in a number of industries in some regions, they are not widespread.

Mr. Ridley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if it were decided to introduce food subsidies it would be necessary to increase taxation to pay for them? Further, does he accept that that might well have an inhibiting effect on the future rate of growth?

Mr. Barber: We have never been doctrinaire about food subsidies or family allowances, which have recently been referred to in the Press. We have not hesitated to take direct action to keep down the prices of particular foodstuffs when that has been necessary. I refer to milk, potatoes, sugar and butter. I agree with my hon. Friend that the argument against massive, across-the-board food subsidies is overwhelming.
The cost would be enormous and the well-to-do would benefit as much as the less well-off. All would benefit alike. Such subsidies would have to be paid for by an increase in general taxation. Of that there can be no doubt
Another matter that has appeared in the Press recently which we have considered on a number of occasions, is the question of the level of family allowances. The Government's conclusion is that the family income supplement is a better means of helping those in need. That remains the Government's view.

Mr. Skinner: If food subsidies will look after the well-to-do, and if they will create extra demand, why is it that three months ago the right hon. Gentleman did exactly the same thing for the building societies?

Mr. Barber: That was a bridging operation, which was explained at the time. I believe that it had the general support of millions of people who are trying to buy their own homes. I am sad to note that the hon. Gentleman was not in favour of giving help over that particularly difficult time.

United Kingdom Companies (Channel Islands Registration)

Mr. Douglas: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the number of companies trading in the United Kingdom which have their registered offices in the Channel Islands and the arrangements which are made for payments of United Kingdom tax by these companies in view of the EEC discussions on tax havens.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: It is not the place of registration that is material for determining a company's liability to United Kingdom tax, but where it is resident. A United Kingdom resident company is liable to United Kingdom tax on its world profits whether registered in the Channel Islands or elsewhere. The number of such companies registered in the Channel Islands is not known.

Mr. Douglas: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that many companies are registered in the Channel Islands for the purpose of tax evasion? Further, is he aware that the EEC has expressed disapproval of such registration? Will he

consult his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State of the Department of Trade and Industry to see what reform of company law can take place to get disclosure of the companies in the Channel Islands?

Mr. Jenkin: I must repeat that mere registration in the Channel Islands does not enable United Kingdom companies to escape tax. If they continue to trade in the United Kingdom they remain liable to United Kingdom tax at least on the profits from their United Kingdom trade. The recent EEC directive, to which we subscribe, was aimed primarily at the position of companies in Luxembourg. Jersey and Guernsey have their own tax system and their own systems of law and administration. It would be entirely contrary to the normal constitutional relationship with the Channel Islands if we were to seek to intervene in their domestic affairs.

Mr. Peter Rees: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there are already measures in force which enable the Revenue to collect tax from the agents or companies of Channel Island companies trading here, and that there is no call for any amendment to the law?

Mr. Jenkin: I take note of what my hon. and learned Friend has said.

Mr. Joel Barnet: Will the right hon. Gentleman in general ignore what his hon. and learned Friend has told him? Will he bear in mind that the Channel Islands are just one of many havens, and that the Opposition will move amendments to the Finance Bill on Tuesday which, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer will agree to alter the resolution, will allow the Prime Minister to do what he has always wanted, namely, to eliminate the horrid face of capitalism?

Mr. Jenkin: I have no doubt that we shall have the opportunity to discuss the general issues relating to this matter during what I understand is to be a wide-ranging debate on Tuesday.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER OF INDIA (TALKS)

Miss Joan Hall: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement concerning his recent official talks with the Prime Minister of India.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): Mrs. Gandhi and I discussed a wide range of subjects, including the current situation in the sub-continent. We agreed that there were no major problems at issue between our two countries and that relations between India and Britain remain excellent.

Miss Hall: Did my right hon. Friend also raise with Mrs. Gandhi the subject of the increasing presence in the Indian Ocean of Russian and Chinese naval forces, which is worrying to India and this country? Further, did my right hon. Friend ask her if she wanted a British presence in the Indian Ocean?

The Prime Minister: That was not one of the subjects that we discussed in detail. Of course, the Royal Navy has the capability of operating in the area. It sails in those waters and from time to time has a major deployment east of the Cape.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember the disastrous Commonwealth Conference that took place soon after he came to office, because of the issue of arms to South Africa? Further, does he recall that the matter was patched up by the appointment of an Indian Ocean study group to consider the menace that was involved? How often has the study group met since that conference, and what have been its findings.

The Prime Minister: Surely the right hon. Gentleman should know that the study group never met, for the simple reason that it was not called together by its chairman.

Mrs. Knight: Was my right hon. Friend able to discuss with Mrs. Gandhi the pitiable situation of the Pakistani prisoners of war who are still held in India? Does he not feel, almost two years after the war is over, that for India to retain these innocent people is entirely against every international and humanitarian law?

The Prime Minister: I am quite convinced, after my discussions with Mrs. Gandhi, that she is as anxious as anyone that the prisoners of war and civilian internees in the countries of the subcontinent should go back to their homes. An arrangement was made at Simla that

Pakistan and India would discuss the matter. We welcomed that arrangement at the time. We welcome the steps which have so far been taken as a result of the Simla agreement, and we will support any move to enable these people of all kinds to return to their homes.

Mr. Stonehouse: Besides supporting any move that has been made, what positive action does the Prime Minister intend to take to further the imaginative proposal that has been made by India and Bangladesh for the exchange of populations, which will see an end to this situation?

The Prime Minister: President Bhutto and Mrs. Gandhi have made it plain that they wish to make these arrangements themselves, with Sheikh Mujib, and that these are matters that should be discussed between the three countries of the sub-continent. They do not wish other countries to make arrangements. Therefore, it is not necessary or even appropriate for us to take an initiative in this respect, although we are naturally in touch with all three countries.

Oral Answers to Questions — REPUBLIC OF IRELAND (PRIME MINISTER)

Mr. Duffy: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his talks with Mr. Cosgrave, the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic, on 2nd July.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) on 3rd July.—[Vol. 859, c. 81.]

Mr. Duffy: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his reluctance to be specific about future intentions and the timetable at this delicate stage is appreciated? Will he bear in mind that the political momentum, both here and in Northern Ireland, as well as the evolution of thinking and policy in Southern Ireland, ought to be maintained and that they must accord with the aspirations of both communities in the Six Counties, which will call for a timetable and an institutional approach to certain key passages in the White Paper?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern


Ireland had talks on Monday—which was the earliest opportunity after the Assembly elections—with leaders of the political parties in the Assembly. My right hon. Friend and I recognise full well the need to maintain the momentum in this matter. The Northern Ireland Constitution Bill is not yet through Parliament, however, and there is therefore a limit on what can be achieved until then. But as soon as it is law I hope that the Executive will be formed. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is essential, now that there is opportunity for power sharing, for which at least the minority parties in Northern Ireland have asked, that they should use it and accept their responsibilities and carry out their own policies.

Mr. Kilfedder: According to him, the Prime Minister of Southern Ireland discussed with my right hon. Friend,
… the importance of matters like an impartial police force … the need for units of the British Army to operate impartially …".
Will my right hon. Friend emphatically refuse the implication that the security forces are biased? Will he also give an assurance that there will be no reorganisation of the RUC or a change in the role of the Army in Northern Ireland as a result of the demands of the Prime Minister of a neighbouring country from which the IRA still operates? What promise has been given by Southern Ireland that IRA men and women wanted for atrocities committed in Northern Ireland will be extradited speedily?

The Prime Minister: Mr. Cosgrave did not raise the question of impartiality by the Army or the police. His anxiety was that the police in Northern Ireland should be able to carry out all the responsibilities of a police force throughout the whole of Northern Ireland, and that is an anxiety that we all share. We discussed the question of extradition, but in fact it cannot be formal extradition because there is no extradition treaty between the two countries. But I pointed out to Mr. Cosgrave that the majority of cases that had come before the United Kingdom courts had resulted in those wanted for criminal offences being returned. It is true that a number of cases are at present before the courts in Eire awaiting to be settled.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that Mr. Cosgrave

is facing reality and being extremely helpful in talking of a working recognition of the two parts of Ireland?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I think that is the case. In the White Paper we said that after the formation of the Executive in Northern Ireland we would have discussions with the Government of the Republic about a Council of Ireland, and that we could then begin to work together on various aspects which all parties require. That, in itself, will be a working recognition of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Stratton Mills: In welcoming the tone of the two recent speeches by Mr. Cosgrave, could my right hon. Friend make clear, as he implied earlier, that his view of the timetable is that the Executive should be formed first and that subsequently there should be talks on a Council of Ireland? Is that Mr. Cosgrave's view as well?

The Prime Minister: There was general agreement between us that what is now required is for the Assembly to meet and the Executive to be formed, and that it would then be appropriate for it to have an opportunity of working out how it would like a Council of Ireland to work. Both the Government of the Republic and the United Kingdom Government will be doing the same. Then we can have a conference that may be fruitful, because we shall have in our minds fairly clear ideas of how it can work in practice.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED NATIONS

Sir Gilbert Longden: asked the Prime Minister if he will visit the United Nations on the occasion of the next meeting of the General Assembly.

Mr. Adley: asked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to the United Nations.

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary hopes to visit the General Assembly during September but I have at present no plans for such a visit myself.

Sir Gilbert Longden: Will my right hon. Friend ask the Foreign Secretary to suggest to the Assembly that it should bring up to date and reconsider a study


that was commissioned by the late Mr. Dag Hammarskjöld in about 1958 on the question of a United Nations emergency force that could be used not only for peace-keeping purposes but for bringing instant first aid to the natural catastrophies that happen so often throughout the world?

The Prime Minister: I do not recall the study but I will ask my right hon. Friend whether he will arrange for it to be looked at again. I have a clear recollection that when a permanent force was proposed certain members of the Security Council were not prepared to agree to any permanent force, and I do not believe that their view has changed. The United Kingdom plays its full part in the ad hoc forces, such as that stationed in Cyprus, required for peace-keeping.

Mr. Peter Archer: At its next session the United Nations General Assembly will be celebrating the 25th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Will Her Majesty's Government celebrate the event by ratifying the declaration?

The Prime Minister: I shall consider that. We are observing the celebrations in London.

Mr. Adley: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that Article 26(3) of the Declaration states that
Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children"?
Will he also confirm that no opprobrium attaches to right hon. and hon. Members opposite who choose to educate their children privately, other than that of hyprocrisy?

The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend for reminding me of the substance of that article. Her Majesty's Government support the maximum freedom of choice in education, and always have done. We welcome the fact that some right hon. and hon. Members opposite take full advantage of it.

Mr. Kaufman: When the Foreign Secretary goes to the United Nations, will he repeat what he said in the foreign affairs debate last week—that the present Government's interpretation of Resolution No. 242 on the Middle East is the same as that of the Labour Government,

and that the Government therefore endorse the interpretation of that resolution as given by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in Israel at the turn of the year?

The Prime Minister: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be quite prepared to say in the United Nations, if it is appropriate to his speech, what he has already said to this House.

Oral Answers to Questions — INNER LONDON BOROUGH COUNCILS

Mr. Thomas Cox: asked the Prime Minister what request he has received for an official meeting with the leaders of inner London borough councils.

The Prime Minister: None, Sir.

Mr. Cox: I note that reply. Is the Prime Minister fully aware that not only his disastrous non-stop food price increases but also his housing policies affect thousands of Londoners each week? As he says that he can do nothing about food price increases, will he at least take action where he does have authority to act—on rents, interest rates, and property prices—in an effort to fight inflation, or is this to be another responsibility that he will try to worm out of?

The Prime Minister: The present Government have done more than any other to help local authorities—for example, through our contributions to the rates. What the ratepayers need to fear is the gross extravagance of local Labour-controlled councils—for example, in Bexley.

Mr. Lipton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the main reason why he has had no request for an official meeting with the leaders of the inner London borough councils is that they became convinced a long time ago that there was no point in seeing him because they would never achieve anything by doing so?

The Prime Minister: Then that view is different from the view held by the rest of the local authorities in the country.

Oral Answers to Questions — HONG KONG

Mr. Skinner: asked the Prime Minister if he will now pay an official visit to Hong Kong.

The Prime Minister: I hope that an opportunity to visit Hong Kong may arise before long but I have no plans to do so in the immediate future.

Mr. Skinner: Will the right hon. Gentleman see to it that the Department of Trade and Industry inspectors—yet to be named—who are to inquire into the Denys Lowson case take full account of the whereabouts of the Hong Kong stamp collection that was purchased for his collection by Mr. Lowson, a well-known philatelist, with other people's money, at a cost of £28,000? Whilst the right hon. Gentleman is about it, will he also ensure that the stamp collection is completed by the butter stamp?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman has any information that he believes involves an offence against the law it is his responsibility to bring it to the notice of the inspectors, the Director of Public Prosecutions, or the Attorney-General. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to make unsubstantiated allegations against a citizen of this country, perhaps he will make them outside this House and let the citizen seek redress.

Sir John Tilney: When the Prime Minister does visit Hong Kong will he note the remarkable success of private enterprise there, in no way associated with Socialist nonsense?

The Prime Minister: I saw it for myself when I was there in 1970. I would have thought that everyone would agree that it has been a most remarkable achievement for a British colony to take in several million refugees, to give them a much higher standard of living than they have ever had before, and to provide the great majority of them with excellent housing.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Harold Wilson: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. James Prior): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 9TH JULY—Supply [26th Allotted Day]; Debate on motions to
take note of the Second Report from the Select Committee on Expenditure in Session 1972–73, on Urban Transport Planning, and on the Report from the Expenditure Committee in Session 1972–73 on Further and Higher Education, and the relevant Government Observations.
Remaining stages of the Education (Scotland) Bill and of the Government Trading Funds Bill.
TUESDAY, 10TH JULY—Report stage of the Finance Bill.
WEDNESDAY, 11TH JULY—Third Reading of the Finance Bill, until about 7 p.m.
Remaining stages of the Protection of Aircraft Bill [Lords] and of the Pakistan Bill.
THURSDAY, 12TH JULY—Supply [27th Allotted Day]: Until 7 o'clock there will be a debate on the Export of Live Animals, on an Opposition motion.
Afterwards, a debate on an Opposition motion to Call Attention to the Shortage of Police Manpower.
Motions on the Elections (Welsh Forms) Regulations and on the Redundancy Payments (Merchant Seamen Exclusion) Order.
FRIDAY, 13TH JULY—A debate on Privacy, which will arise on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
MONDAY, 16TH JULY—Supply [28th Allotted Day]: There will be a debate on an Opposition motion on Scottish Affairs.

Mr. Wilson: While the whole House will hope that it will be possible for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to be able to conclude his discussions with the parties there before the Summer Recess so that we may deal with the motion to validate the new establishment there, in the event that he does not find it possible or feels that rushing it may provide the wrong answer, will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared, after appropriate consultations, to recall the House during the recess to deal with that motion? I say that so that there shall be no impediment in the Government's mind about recalling the House.
Dealing with next week's business, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that we hope that what was carried in Committee on the Pakistan Bill will be accepted by the Government and the House, which will enable us to give a reasonably speedy passage to the Bill? However, if the Government are not willing to accept what was carried in Committee, is he aware that we shall have to ask the Government to reconsider the business and to make this the only business after 7 o'clock on Wednesday?
Since there was great publicity a week ago about what the Leader of the House told the 1922 Committee, which I understand is a committee that meets upstairs, about Members' outside interests, will the right hon. Gentleman kindly consider making a similar statement to the House of Commons, which is concerned with this matter? Is he aware of our own proposals—and those of the Liberal Party—in which we include not only a register of the interests of Members but also a register of the interests of parliamentary journalists who report and influence our proceedings, and also a register of all lobbies operating on hon. Members?
Has the right hon. Gentleman seen Motion No. 383 on the Order Paper?
[That this House, noting that the housewives of the Midlands, who were treated as the most desirable women on earth by the Leader of the Conservative Party when he was wooing them for their votes in 1970, are now described by Conservative Party officials as 'this bloody crowd'; recognising that this adds insult to the severe injury which they have suffered from record increases in the price of food and other essentials, urges the Prime Minister to apologise to those housewives for the cynical and deliberate political seduction practised by him upon them in June 1970, and to take immediate and radical steps to stabilise the cost of living.]
This is signed by a large number of hon. Members deploring the behaviour—[Interruption.] It is about "this bloody crowd", if the right hon. Gentleman wants the title. It is about a case where a Cabinet Minister went into some supermarket and had to get out in a hurry. The report in the Daily Telegraph quoted a Conservative Office official. Could we have a statement in the House either by the Minister con-

cerned or by the Leader of the House in his capacity as Vice-Chairman of the Conservative Party, since it was "this bloody crowd" that believed in the price policies the right hon. Gentleman promised in 1970?

Mr. Prior: Before I turn to the rather more controversial remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, may I answer his questions on Northern Ireland by saying that I am extremely grateful to him and the Opposition for their co-operation with Northern Ireland business during this difficult Session. I cannot exclude the possibility that the House might have to be recalled—I hope very much that it will not be necessary—on account of Northern Ireland affairs. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will have heard the exchanges.
I have noted what the right hon. Gentleman says about the Pakistan Bill. I gladly give the assurance that the Government's attitude to issues which have been raised in respect of the Bill is such that if a long debate could be expected we would take the Pakistan business first and drop the business dealing with the protection of aircraft. We will, of course, consult on this.
Turning to Members' outside interests, it would be much better, now that consultations have been going on within the parties, that I should now begin consultations between the parties about what would be an acceptable arrangement and what are the difficulties in arranging a register of Members' interests. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I am now ready to begin consultations with the Labour and Liberal Parties.
As for the visit of my right hon. and learned Friend to Birmingham, he tells me that he very much enjoyed his visit. He was in no way aware of the so-called jostling that took place. which appears to have been no more than a figment of certain peoples' imagination. My right hon. and learned Friend and other hon. Friends will be ready at all times to talk to housewives, because we at least can show what is our attitude whereas the Opposition do not have one.

Mr. Harold Wilson: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for showing his great sense of humour in this matter. It is a pity that the Sunday Telegraph should have been repudiated by the


Prime Minister on Tuesday and now the Daily Telegraph by the right hon. Gentleman.
Dealing with the question about Northern Ireland, which the right hon. Gentleman appropriately dealt with seriously, I think he has probably taken the point—I am sure the Secretary of State has—that it is partly that if the Secretary of State feels it is undesirable to rush things to get the right answer he should not feel inhibited by the need to ask the House to take a decision before the recess. Secondly, should the Secretary of State, as we would hope in such circumstances, be able to make sufficient progress in the recess, it might be in his view a disaster to have to wait until October for the House to ratify the situation. We want to give the Secretary of State the right to choose the moment. He should feel absolutely uninhibited about the Government recommending you, Mr. Speaker, after the appropriate consultations, to recall the House whether it is to delay a rushed answer or to avoid postponing ratification if agreement is reached.

Mr. Prior: My right hon. Friend will have listened to this exchange. I know that I express his gratitude when I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the view he has expressed.

Mr. Ramsden: Now that the bulk of the proceedings on the Finance Bill are in Committee, might it not be cutting things rather fine to have only one day for Report and one day for Third Reading on the Floor of the House?

Mr. Prior: Certain parts of the Bill were taken in Committee of the whole House. We had better see how we get on. I hope very much that we shall be able to get through it in the day-and-a half allowed.

Miss Boothroyd: May I draw to the attention of the Leader of the House to Motion No. 383, which stands in my name and the names of about 80 of my hon. Friends? It was mentioned just now by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. It calls upon the Prime Minister to apologise to housewives for the misstatement—I think that is the correct parliamentary term—which he made to them in June 1970, and urges him and the Government to take im-

mediate and radical steps to stabilise the cost of living. Will it be possible to debate the motion next week, and, if not, as a matter of urgency to millions of families in this country, when might we debate the increased prices that are being agreed by the Price Commission?

Mr. Prior: I hope the hon. Lady will recognise that if prices have gone up by 26·4 per cent. average earnings are up by 37·8 per cent. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] I hope she will also realise that real disposable income per head has risen 12¾ per cent. in the last three years compared with 9½ per cent. in the six years of Labour Government. If she would like to include those matters in the debate, I am certain that we can arrange one.

Mr. Powell: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the registration of Members' interests is a matter for the House, of which he is the Leader, and not for Her Majesty's Government?

Mr. Prior: I am well aware that Members' interests are a matter for the House of Commons as a whole. That is why I have been proceeding with such care in consulting hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is certainly my intention to do so. As Leader of the House, I am, naturally, concerned to protect against unfair innuendo hon. Members of the House who have told me they feel strongly that a register of Members' interests is now necessary.

Mr. Pannell: The Leader of the House will be aware that the Committee of Privileges has considered the style and title of the former hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, Lord Lambton, and come to a unanimous conclusion. As the former hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed has left us, there is nothing personal in what I say. Is the right hon. Gentleman seized of the need to implement the report of the Committee of Privileges so that the situation in which an hon. Member wishes to renounce a title but still retain it in the House does not again arise?

Mr. Prior: I will consider what the right hon. Gentleman has said, particularly in the light of the fact that the former hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed is no longer with us. I will consider this further and at a suitable time give the House my views upon it.

Mr. Sydney Chapman: The hon. Member for West Bromwich (Miss Boothroyd), whom I welcome as representing my next-door constituency, and the Leader of the Opposition have referred to the visit of the Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs to my constituency to meet shoppers.

Hon. Members: Ask a question.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must put what he wants to say in the form of a question.

Mr. Chapman: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the newspaper reports were exaggerated? Is my right hon. Friend aware that I agree with what the Leader of the Opposition has said on previous repeated occasions, that one should not believe everything one reads in the Press?

Mr. Prior: If we had to debate some of the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition we should be here for a long time.

Mr. William Hamilton: Does the right hon. Gentleman's reply to questions about Members' interests mean that we shall have a debate on the Select Committee's Report on this matter and on the result of the inter-party negotiations before the recess or in any event before Government proposals are put before us? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that when the Select Committee's Report on the Anti-Discrimination (No. 2) Bill is published—as it will be in a few days—he will find an opportunity to debate it before the House rises for the Summer Recess?

Mr. Prior: I hope that the Select Committee's Report will be published towards the end of next week. I can give no undertaking about a debate before the Summer Recess. At a time when the House will wish to debate the whole question of Members' interests, the 1969 Select Committee's Report will need to be considered. It is still much too early to decide what form the debate should take—whether on a resolution for debate by the House or on the motion for Adjournment. A great deal of work and consultation still remains to be done. We have made some progress, but I doubt whether there will be time for a debate before the Summer Recess.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Will my right hon. Friend undertake to find time before the Summer Recess for a debate on the Government's stance on world monetary and world trading positions, subjects that will be debated at forthcoming conferences? This is especially desirable in view of the statement issued in Brussels that the important question of freedom of trade in food would not be discussable?

Mr. Prior: I will consider what my right hon. Friend has said. We have just had a two-day debate on foreign affairs, to which some of these points were relevant. I am in difficulty between now and the beginning of the Summer Recess, and I cannot give a firm undertaking to find time for a debate on this subject.

Mr. Faulds: When does the right hon. Gentleman intend to arrange for the Government to bring in an amendment to the copyright law to allow the introduction of public lending right for authors?

Mr. Prior: Certainly not between now and the beginning of the Summer Recess.

Dame Irene Ward: I understand that the Government's decisions on the recommendations of the Booz-Allen Report on shipbuilding are making good progress. May I ask that no action be taken to implement the Government's proposals on the recommendations until the House has had an opportunity to debate them?

Mr. Prior: I will not overlook my hon. Friend's wish that the Government's policy should not be implemented until after their decision has been debated. I have to be a little careful because we are getting short of time for debates and we shall not be meeting again perhaps until October. I am not certain how much delay there can properly be on this. I will communicate with my hon. Friend this week after considering further what she has said to me today.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Is The right hon. Gentleman aware that next Thursday's debate on the police will be widely welcomed, not least by the Police Federation and by the Joint Branch Board of the Police Federation in the Metropolis?

Mr. Prior: I am glad to have that information from the hon. Gentleman. who knows a good deal about these matters.

Mr. Marten: Shall we be debating my Motion No. 243 on not raising the age for the issue of driving licences from 17 to 18 and, if so, when?
[That this House rejects the proposals contained in a draft directive of the Corn-mission of the European Communities (No. C 119/1 dated 16th November 1972 in the Official Journal of the EC) namely, the Raising of the Age for a Driving Licence from 17 years to 18 years and other related matters.]

Mr. Prior: Not next week, but before the Summer Recess.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for a statement to be made next week by the responsible Minister about yesterday's judicial decision on a pay claim which had been turned down by the Government and has now been upheld by the courts? May we have a full statement on this and on what the Government intend to do in view of the serious damage the decision may do to their policies? Will he not draw the conclusion—a conclusion which many of us have tried to tell the Govermnent—that the Government can make decisions but cannot make law? Only Parliament can make law, and the courts have so decided.

Mr. Prior: This matter could still be subject to a further court action, and, therefore, it would be unwise for me to go further than that today, except to convey what the right hon. Gentleman has said to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Since we saw from the "tape" this morning, if that information is correct, that the defendants in this case have announced they are not to appeal, are the Government considering whether they can find some way of appealing in a civil case which is taking place between two other parties? [interruption.] Perhaps the Official Solicitor or the former Solicitor-General can advise them on this matter. When the right hon. Gentleman has clarified this matter, will he consider making a statement about how the Government are to react to this slap in the fact from the judiciary at the Government's attempt to act without the rule of law?

Mr. Prior: Without accepting the adjectives used by the right hon. Gentle-

man, I shall look at the matter to see whether a statement can be made.

Sir Gilbert Longden: My right hon. Friend keeps on referring to the beginning of the Summer Recess. When is it to be?

Mr. Prior: Not next week, but I hope to be able to make an announcement about that next week. Provided that we can get through our business reasonably quickly, I hope that hon. Members will not be disappointed.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Is the Leader of the House aware that the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs made some pertinent and relevant observations about land use in Scotland, which is very important in the current situation? Is he also aware that the report has been in the Government's hands for nine months? Does he accept that this gestation period is long enough even for a Conservative Government to reach a decision? May we have a debate on this matter before the recess?

Mr. Prior: I am certain that there will not be an opportunity for a debate, but many of the matters which are relevant to the report will be debated on Monday week.

Mr. Edward Taylor: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is widespread public concern that the present rise in food prices might be aggravated by the introduction of metric weights in pre-packed foodstuffs in the shops? Does not he think it a good idea for the House to have a statement soon about Government policy on metrication and for there to be a full-scale debate on the future of the country's progress towards metrication?

Mr. Prior: Yes, I think we should have a debate on metrication. I cannot see time for it this side of the recess, but I hope that the matter will be discussed soon after we come back. I do not believe that any suspicions about metric packs causing increases in the price of food are justified. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] But this is perhaps something that could be discussed in the debate.

Dr. Dickson Mahon: Will the Leader of the House confirm that before we rise for the Summer Recess there will be at least three ministerial statements: one on


the Booz-Allen Report on the future of shipbuilding, one on the Hardman Report on the dispersal of the Civil Service to other parts of the United Kingdom outside London; and one on the Cyrriax Report affecting the future of can sugar and beet sugar refining in the United Kingdom? Although we are not asking for the statements next week, will the right hon. Gentleman accept that individual Members of Parliament want to meet Ministers before these statements are made? Will he make sure that this is agreed?

Mr. Prior: I know that in respect of the Hardman Report my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Civil Service Department has said that he is willing to meet deputations of Members from all parts of the House. On Booz-Allen, I do not know whether the negotiations and consultations with the shipbuilding industry will be completed in time for a statement to be made before the recess. I shall look into the situation. On the Cyrriax Report, I know that this matter has been outstanding for a considerable time and has a particular bearing on, and could be worrying for, the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I will ask my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture whether he is in a position to make a statement, or whether he is able to convey any information to the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon).

Mr. Kilfedder: In view of the tremendous interest aroused in Great Britain and in this House by the system of proportional representation which was used in the elections in Northern Ireland, the system known as STV, will my right hon. Friend provide time for the House to debate the desirability of introducing such a system in respect of election to this Parliament?

Mr. Prior: I congratulate the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) and the people of Northern Ireland on being able to understand the system. I am afraid I have never got round to understanding it myself, and I certainly could not find time to debate it.

Mr. Lawson: Have the Government completed their consultations on afforestation policy for the United Kingdom? If so, may we have a statement on this matter very soon?

Mr. Prior: No, Sir. The Government's consultations are not completed. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government put their views to the industry. This is the first major change in forestry policy for 30 years, and the consultations are still going on. Because they are rather complex, they are taking some time to complete. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture says that he is not yet in a position to make a statement about the outcome of the consultations

Mr. Monte: May I ask my right hon. Friend to put off the date of the Summer Recess to give the House ample time to debate the GATT negotiating position? Does he recall that he said that this was a suitable subject for debate, but agreed that a foreign affairs debate was not a suitable vehicle to discuss these negotiations, which are probably the most important trade negotiations that have ever been held?

Mr. Prior: I do not for a moment under-estimate the importance of those negotiations, but it is very difficult to fit everything into the time available. I shall give careful consideration to the views which have been expressed this afternoon.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Are we to have a statement from the Government before the Summer Recess announcing the postponement of the third London airport project?

Mr. Prior: No, Sir. I think the hon. Gentleman knows the Government's position very well.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Will the Leader of the House resist any request to waste the time of the House in debating the report of the Committee of Privileges in respect of the style and title of the former Member for Berwick-on-Tweed, Lord Lambton, in view of the fact that three members of that particular Privileges Committee, who sat in adjudication of the hon. Member's claim, have tabled a condemnatory motion? Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that some hon. Members, particularly myself, would take grave exception to the House wasting its time debating a motion when three members of that Committee have placed themselves in a prejudiced position?

Mr. Prior: I do not wish to enter into the merits of the matter at all. I have always felt that this was a matter on which the House should be able to come to a reasonable decision without the need for a debate.

Mr. Edward Short: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Badgers Bill completed its Committee stage this week, and that, therefore, there is not very much time left. Is he also aware that a great many hon. Members are concerned about the future of this delightful mammal, and, indeed, about most of our native mammals? Will he consider giving us a little time after ten o'clock so that the House may reach a decision on this Bill?

Mr. Prior: I notice from today's Notice Paper that the Bill, as amended, is down for consideration on 20th July, when it will be among the top half-dozen Bills. Judging by the progress of the Bill so far—I am not aware of any opposition to it—I think there is general acceptance in the House that this is a Bill we should all like to see on the statute book. I see no reason at all why it should not go through on 20th July. I would find myself in an impossible position if I were to allow Private Members' business to run outside the time allocated for it. Therefore, I very much hope that it will go through without trouble on 20th July.

Mr. Paget: A point of order, Mr. Speaker—a very short point on the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved). Is there anything to discuss? I understand that you had ruled that what a Member is called and when a Member is called is for you, and you

alone, and that you would normally choose the name by which the Member chose to be known. Does not that conclude the matter?

Mr. Speaker: I am not prepared to become involved further in this controversy. I have given a ruling. That stands until the House decides otherwise.

PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS

Mr. Marten: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise with you a small technical matter. Today the Government have published their observations on the Report of the Expenditure Committee on further and higher education. Those observations were available at the Vote Office at half-past two, but not before, although the Vote Office had them. The Press however had them with an embargo at 11 o'clock this morning. Hon. Members are put in a difficult position if the two times of release of such a document are not the same.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's point will have been noted.

BILL PRESENTED

PUBLIC DECLARATION OF INTEREST (COMMERCIAL ADVERTISEMENT) BILL

Mr. Michael Cocks presented a Bill to provide that persons taking part in the commercial advertisement of any product or service shall make a simultaneous public declaration of any connection with the firm sponsoring such advertisement and of any fee received: And the same was read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time upon Friday 20th July and to be printed [Bill 180].

NORTHERN IRELAND (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL

As amended (in the Committee and in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 1

APPLICATION OF PART I

(1) The provisions or any of the provisions of this Part of this Act (save those of sections 1 and 9) shall apply if and only if before or in the course of proceedings in respect of a scheduled offence a judge of the High Court makes a Part I direction, that is to say a direction that those provisions or any of them shall apply to those proceedings.

(2) Where in respect of any proceedings a Part I direction has been made, a judge may make such consequential directions as he may consider appropriate.

(3) A Part I direction may be made if and only if the judge is satisfied that by reason of duress, violence, intimidation, bribery, fraud or other unlawful conduct or the reasonable apprehension thereof the prospects of a fair and just trial are or are likely to be substantially prejudiced.

(4) A Part I direction shall not be made except upon the application of the Attorney General or a defendent and rules shall provide for the hearing of such application in private.

(5) A right of appeal shall lie against a Part I direction and against a refusal to make a Part I direction.

(6) Rules shall provide for the hearing in private of any appeal made by virtue of subsection (5) above.—[Mr. S. C. Silkin.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.2 p.m.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I begin by making it quite clear that the Opposition are as concerned as the Secretary of State and his Ministers about the violence the shootings and the bombings which have become a regular feature of Northern Ireland life. We believe also in the concept of power sharing. We believe that no legislation, no court proceedings and no judicial penalties can be as effective in reducing or eliminating the violence as the feeling of being part of a community which power sharing, if it succeeds, can give to all members of the Northern Ireland community.
However, that is for the future. I do not believe that any of us will take a view other than that in the meantime the Government must have ample power to track down the murderers and the violent, wherever they may be, and bring them to justice.
We believe that the balance of the consideration of that question was about right in the terms of reference of the Diplock Committee, which are set out in paragraph 1 on page 5 of its report. At the beginning of what we hope will be the major debate during this stage of the Bill's passage through the House, it is right that we should recall those terms of reference to They were to consider
… what arrangements for the administration of justice in Northern Ireland could be made in order to deal more effectively with terrorist organisations by bringing to book, otherwise than by internment by the Executive, individuals involved in terrorist activities, particularly those who plan and direct, but do not necessarily take part in terrorist acts….
I emphasise the words "other than by internment".
The conclusions of the Diplock Committee and the Bill which is before us depart radically from those terms of reference.
In considering our attitude to Part I of the Bill it is right to have in mind the existence and the provisions of Parts II and III; that is to say, the continuation of internment under a different title—that of "detention of terrorists"—though certainly more closely regulated than before, and the proscription of terrorist organisations.
That is the background against which we have to consider the system of diluted justice, as I described it in Committee, which comprises Part I. A system which many of us hoped would displace internment is to run side by side with it. Whatever happens to Part I, it will still be possible for terrorists to be detained and kept out of harm's way indefinitely under the provisions of Part II. The safety of the public will still have that safeguard. So we are now considering what more than that is needed for the protection of the public.
The Committee stage revealed a very sharp difference of approach, and it was a difference not entirely on party lines. It is that Part I of the Bill establishes a special form of justice for scheduled


offences, and scheduled offences comprise a very wide range of offences against persons and property. It establishes a judicial system which I do not believe any Member of this House would accept in normal times. What is more, it goes far beyond the recommendations of the Criminal Law Revision Committee, which were so widely criticised, and which for all I know are now dead and buried.
In Committee we analysed, we tested and we examined these proposals clause by clause. We looked at each of them, and we asked to be convinced that each one was necessary, that it was necessary to set up a judicial system parallel with the normal system of justice but free from the majority of the recognised safeguards for the innocent. We sought with open, if critical, minds, and certainly the Attorney-General will recall that throughout the whole of my speech in Committee I repeatedly said "Give us the evidence upon which you justify this and similar provisions."
That was the view of the Opposition. We wanted to discover what justification there was or could be for the abandonment in scheduled cases of trial by jury—the traditional and supreme safeguard of the citizen. We asked for clear evidence of its necessity. We also scrutinised the abandonment of other traditional safeguards in respect of oral evidence, the right to cross-examine, and admissions secured by methods which in the courts of this country would render them wholly inadmissible. We tested the necessity for reversing the burden of proof—the ordinary rule that a man is innocent until he is proved to be guilty—in cases where firearms and explosives are found in the same building. in the same aircraft or even in the same ship as the defendant and where no other evidence of possession on his part exists.
Every time that we sought to discover the justification for these Draconian measures. which we still regard as wholly incompatible with the ordinary form of justice as we have known it in this country for generations, we were told "This is necessary because of fear, because of intimidation and because in the ordinary courts people are afraid to give evidence and afraid to do jury service."
To that reply, we said that these scheduled offences are the most serious

in the calendar, for which men and women may be sentenced to imprisonment for life or the longest possible terms. How can we justify a system in which the more serious the offence and the more catastrophic the penalty the lower the burden of proof and the lesser the safeguards for the things which relate to it?
The Law Officers said in answer to that point that there could not be justice in the ordinary courts because of the extent of intimidation. But when we asked for proof of that assertion, proof which could emerge through the figures of convictions, of acquittals and of cases in which juries were unable to agree, we were not given them, despite the fact that the Attorney-General told us that the danger of intimidation had grown enormously since the courts had begun to deal with offenders, or possible offenders, from what is called the Loyalist side, as from about the end of last year.
What we were given, instead of those figures, were ample generalisations in exchange for our request for particularity. Many of them were not even relevant to the real issue. Some were relevant to possible changes in the system in Northern Ireland, which we have made the subject of other amendments, but they were not relevant to what we really wanted to know and be convinced about.
Even the report of the Diplock Commission did not go so far as to suggest that there was already widespread intimidation but only that that might come because illegality was now on both sides of the spectrum and not on one side only. Hon. Members have only to read what the commission said in paragraph 35 to see the force of that observation.
In paragraph 35 the commission said, in so many words:
We have not had our attention drawn to complaints of convictions that were plainly perverse, and complaints of acquittals which were plainly perverse are rare.
The commission based its view entirely upon the possibility of an extension of intimidation now that illegal activities were on both sides of the sectarian political fence.
In those circumstances, and having considered carefully all the answers given to us by the Government when these clauses


were examined in Committee, the question that we felt bound to ask was: Is there any justification for applying these provisions of diluted justice throughout the whole range of the scheduled offences, covering so wide a spectrum of the criminal system?
The conclusion to which we came is that, even if it could be justified in some cases, notwithstanding the powers available to detain those regarded as dangerous terrorists, notwithstanding the powers of proscription of terrorist organisations under Part III, it could not be regarded as a necessity across the whole field of offences, even in cases where there was no possibility or question of intimidation or other unlawful conduct.

4.15 p.m.

This is why we have put down the new clause. It provides that if someone is charged with one of these many scheduled offences—murder, violence, bombing and so on—the offences will be tried according to the ordinary system of law, unless a judge of the High Court can be persuaded by proceedings, which we accept would have to be in private, that duress, violence, intimidation, bribery, fraud, other unlawful conduct or a reasonable apprehension thereof existed to such a degree that the prospects of a fair and just trial—fair both to the defendants and to the prosecution—are or are likely to be substantially prejudiced.

We have thus reduced the generality of these provisions to the particular cases in which that can be proved, and we allow that procedure to be put into effect not only before the commencement of cases but also during them. Thus. if at any time in the course of a case it came to the knowledge of either the Attorney-General or his representative, or, indeed, of a defendant—defendants may be equally prejudiced by these things—that there was a danger of substantial prejudice to a fair and just trial, at any stage an application could be made to the High Court judge. If he were satisfied that that was the position, the jury could be discharged, and the case would continue either with the judge alone sitting to determine it—or, as is now the position as a result of a successful amendment in Committee, with the judge and two other legally qualified people—or, if it were felt in the circumstances of the case that the whole trial

should start again, the judge could so direct.

The House will recollect that many of the provisions in Part I which we discussed at length in Committee were carried by the narrowest of majorities—indeed, in several cases only by the casting vote of the Chairman. That applied in particular to what is now Clause 2: that is to say, the clause which removes the right to jury trial, a right that we have always regarded as fundamentally important to the ordinary citizen.

Sir Elwyn Jones: The Government were defeated on the single judge provision.

Mr. Silkin: As my right hon. and learned Friend reminds me, on the single judge provision, which we shall be debating again later, the Government were defeated in Committee.
It is fair to say that not only did the votes show considerable hesitation, to put it at its very least, about these provisions, but, more so, those hon. or hon. and gallant Members who found themselves unable not to support the Government by their vote expressed great anxiety in their speeches.
In those circumstance we believe it would be entirely wrong that these provisions should spread across the whole range of these offences. If they can be justified at all, let them be justified in relation to the particular case; and if there is any real apprehension that a jury may be intimidated, or that they fear intimidation, or that a witness may fear intimidation, then it would be possible for anyone affected by it, whether the Attorney-General or a defendant, to make use of this procedure and apply to a judge and tell the judge in private The evidence upon which his fear is based. If the judge were satisfied on that, the provisions of Part I would apply.
We put this forward as a fair, reasonable and just compromise between the views, which are, of course, seriously and sincerely held on both sides, of those who feel it is going far too far that every offence of any kind in the schedule should necessarily be dealt with by the diluted justice procedure of Part I, and those who feel that it is necessary that some safeguard of this kind should be provided. It is our hope that the Government will see the force of that argument and will accept this position. We


have gone as far as we can with this new clause to meet their view, and we hope that they will be as accommodating towards our views as we have been to theirs.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Michael Havers): I do not intend to follow the generalities of some of the comments made by the hon. and learned Gentleman in moving the new clause since they would seem to me to be more appropriate when the House comes to consider the next group of amendments. I intend to confine myself to what is contained in the new clause, in particular the philosophy that has been put forward by the hon. and learned Gentleman, in the sense that if at any time in the course of a case it comes to the knowledge of the Attorney-General or the defendant that there is duress of whatever it may be, that a High Court judge can make the order at once.
I have to advise the House that that is a totally unrealistic approach. One must see what the new clause involves because there is about it the major difficulty that in order for it to be effective, particularly if a Part I direction were to be made, a decision would have to be taken by the High Court judge before the committal proceedings, because it would be at the committal proceedings that a decision would have to be taken whether the various provisions in Part I, such as the admissibility of admissions by an accused person or the admission of other statements, and other matters set out in Part I are part of the case on committal; because if it is not a scheduled offence at that stage evidence would not be admissible in the committal proceedings.
One would have, therefore, an application for a decision by a High Court judge before committal but that judge at that far stage from the ultimate trial would have to ask himself whether he was satisfied that
by reason of duress, violence, intimidation, bribery, fraud or other unlawful conduct or the reasonable apprehension thereof the prospects of a fair and just trial are or are likely to be substantially prejudiced.
This would be—I emphasise this—in respect of a case not yet committed and in respect of a case the trial of which certainly would be several months away. It would be imposing upon that High Court

judge the duty to apply a subjective test to it which it seems to me he would be quite unable to do, just as the Attorney-General would be quite unable to satisfy him at that stage, far from the trial, of any of the grounds set out in subsection (3) of the new clause. The purpose of the Bill as it is at present is to provide an objective test, subject of course to the limited discretion vested in the Attorney-General under the two certifying-out procedures in the notes at the end of Schedule 4.
It is important also to look at what would be involved in sheer physical work. There are at the moment, I believe, some 350 committal offences which if this Bill becomes law will be scheduled type offences. There are 180 schedule-type offences which have been committed, or "returned" as it is called in Northern Ireland, awaiting trial; and the fairest estimate that can be given for the future, from now on, would be about 100 such charges per month. Each of those cases would have to be argued before a judge in chambers in private, and there would also be a right provided here for appeal thereafter. So there is a backlog, even if the Bill became law today with this new clause in it, of just under 550 cases and a running future monthly increase of about 100; and if each case is to be argued, as it would possibly have to be, one can see only few cases being dealt with on application by the Attorney-General every day.
There is also another very serious consequence. If the judge was satisfied by the evidence under subsection (3) and made a Part I direction, the prejudicial effect of that on a defendant would in our view be extreme, when it is known that the case was one of those which fell within subsection (3).
The Government's intention is that Part I should apply only where necessary, and as a result there has been very careful selection of offences, and there is the certifying-out procedure giving a discretion to the Attorney-General in cases which may be more domestic than terrorist offences. In reality, the Bill is assuming that if an offence in Schedule 4 is charged it would be because the situation in Northern Ireland is such that it is reasonable for Part I to apply. These reasons are really based on the evidence


of the widespread and general situation which will be given by my right hon. and learned Friend in more detail in the next group of amendments.
It would be almost impossible in any individual case to know whether the risk so far ahead was likely to bring it within subsection (3) and, as I have told the House, would impose what I believe to be an impossible burden upon the Attorney-General in seeking to satisfy a judge under that subsection. The discretion which is given to the judge does not, under this amendment, limit itself in the way spoken of by the hon. and learned Gentleman. As the judge is asked to consider the whole of Part I except for Clauses 1 and 9, he would have to consider bail, venue, evidential provisions. so far as confessions are concerned, and statements by someone not available. How he is to do that under subsection (3) completely baffles me.
There is no likelihood of a trial being prejudiced where there is created a need for restrictions; for example, on bail or evidential provisions. Those are based on quite separate provisions, and I must advise firmly that they are not really capable of being adjudicated upon so far as they are concerned in each individual case. For these reasons I say the amendment is unrealistic and impossible of operation, and I invite the House to reject it.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. R. T. Paget: As I see it, we have an army engaged in Northern Ireland on very painful and dangerous duties; an army of occupation facing a guerrilla. That army—I have complained about this previously—has been denied the protection normally given to or taken by an army that finds itself in that position. Somewhat belatedly, and inadequately, the Government. by this Bill, are doing something to remedy that.
The new clause is to water down what the Government are doing, which I regard already as inadequate. Therefore, I am unable to support it.
I have been having correspondence with both our troops and our police in Ireland. I do not think that my hon. Friends, or the Government, realise what is happening to the morale of the Army in Northern Ireland. It is bad. it is

getting worse. The recruiting figures will not prove to be a passing phenomenon, particularly the re-engagements of the young sergeants, and this is even worse in respect of the police.
When I raised this matter the other day, both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State pooh-poohed it. I am sure that they were sincere, because it was what the generals had told them. Nevertheless, the trouble here is that this is a soldier's problem, and there is a rather dangerous loss of confidence in the command.
That is not the newest thing in the world. Troops often become disenchanted with the staff. That is the kind of feeling here. But there must be some substance to it.
One of the letters that I have had, after describing the kind of things that the troops were up against, says this:
Some idiot general gets up about once a month and tells the world that we are winning. It makes the soldiers laugh.
The bombs are not stopping. They are getting worse. The casualties and the incidents are getting worse. What are we winning?

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. William Whitelaw): The hon. and learned Gentleman is making a lot of assertions. I should not like him to think from my silence that I agree with his statements, or that the statistics prove that what he is saying is accurate.

Mr. Paget: I got the figures from the Library. We shall come to them in a moment.
Another anxious letter that I received says
From Brigadier upwards they are interested in their own rat race and they care more about avoiding a political row than the safety of their soldiers.
That is what the Army is feeling. I do not know whether or not that is just, but it happens that the highest ranks are involved in this political situation, which they may understand better than the lower ranks. However, it is a very unhappy morale situation.

Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. and learned Gentleman is making some very serious accusations which I do not accept. My own information and knowledge is not confined to talking to the generals. I


have been a soldier too, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, and I wish to find my information from throughout the Army, and I do. I do not accept the assertions that the hon. and learned Gentleman is making on the basis of some correspondence. He is seeking to argue from a particular to a general in a way that is most dangerous.

Mr. Paget: This is the great difficulty. I gave notice of the particular points and quotations that I would be making, but in these circumstances one has to argue from the particular to the general. When one finds so many people serving in this Army, doing this job, and getting really anxious and wanting this matter raised, it should be raised. They should hear that this is being said in Parliament and that the Government are being made aware of it and are dealing with the point to the best of their ability.

Mr. Carol Mather: Has it occurred to the hon. and learned Gentleman that it is remarkable that under the very difficult conditions in which the soldiers operate in Northern Ireland, the morale is so high that they like being on operations in Ireland rather more than being on exercise in Germany?

Mr. Paget: That may or may not be so. I agree that morale, particularly at regimental level, has so far stood up very well. But we are finding more and more people saying, "We are not returning for another go." That is the trouble.
I refer now to another case, that of Captain Lanyon. He was in civilian clothes and used a pistol to defend himself. He was prosecuted for attempted murder. One fully understands the attitude of impartiality that the Government have to assume, but when it becomes impartiality between the IRA and our own forces one understands the anxieties running through this. These anxieties are real. It is no use shutting our eyes to them. When we get the two major parties in agreement on this kind of issue, it is for the odd "out" people to put the point of view of the soldiers who are very unhappy.
Again, here is the kind of case about which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silk in) was saying there were not absurd

acquittals. Has he considered the case of Ward and MacShaffery? A patrol of the Scots Guards was shot at, and saw that it had been shot at, from No. 16 Duraw Park, in Londonderry. The soldiers were very quick, and closed both doors. They caught the two men running out. One had an Armalite magazine in one pocket and expended bullet shells in the other. An Armalite rifle was found upstairs. Lead marks were found on Ward's finger. When those were found Ward said, "That is because MacShaffery was wearing gloves." Both men were acquitted, even of possession of the bullets in their pockets. What effect does that have on the morale of the Army and the police? We have to have some tougher trial that stops that sort of thing happening.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: What was the defence?

Mr. Paget: There was no defence. The defence was. "We are Republicans. We do not recognise this court. We refuse to plead."

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Why were they not sentenced?

Mr. Paget: Because they were acquitted. With that kind of case occurring, I ask people, please, not to tell us that they want to water down the means of tightening up the procedure.
This kind of thing has effect right through in the question of arrests and getting them. This is an impression of the troops. I again quote from letters.
Commanders will not allow arrest of suspects if they can avoid it. Tough interrogation is forbidden. We must avoid a row. Do not do anything that might annoy the other side. Keep the way clear for a political solution.
That is not the way to deal with a guerrilla movement. A letter from the Grenadiers says:
There were periods of two or three days during our last tour when we were given clear orders not to arrest anyone"—
The next part is underlined—
whether or not they were on the wanted list, in case an arrest provoked hostile action.
They go on to say:
On more than one occasion when guardsmen arrested men for whom they had been searching for months they were made to let them go because of a blanket order of no arrests.


I do not see how we can do that.
When the troops do arrest someone it ought to snowball. From one arrest we ought to get several. But there is a continual complaint that when arrests are made that is enough, and they are told not to go on.
There is a difficulty in getting searches and a difficulty with the Press. When the Press criticise a unit for being energetic, instead of the unit getting the backing that it ought to have, the company commanders are warned, which is humiliating for them and for the men.
There is another question that also gets on their nerves—the idea of an accepted casualty rate. I do not know if casualty rates are acceptable to the Government, but the troops have the idea that there is such a rate. They call it the "duty target." These are all things which are going on.
I shall read a passage that impressed me greatly, written by an officer who has been on a number of tours to Northern Ireland. He says:
Like Keat's small boats they are 'borne aloft or sinking as the light wind lives and dies'. Ever since I came to Derry in 1969 I have watched them keep the tragedy alive by blowing hot and cold. We could easily finish it in two or three months. Every soldier knows this. But he will not keep coming back to be a duty target or an acceptable casualty. While my battalion … was in Derry we had to stand by while the IRA fired Armalites over the grave of one of their terrorists. Later one of our guardsmen was shot by the same sort of weapon in the Creggan. What explanation do I give to my soldiers. Every day my men saw Reg Tester in the Creggan. He is known to have helped murder Ranger Best. We cannot arrest him because we have a truce with the Official IRA.
If the morale of the troops stands that sort of thing it is astonishing.
I would go much further than this. I would recall Field Marshall Templer. He is not too old. He would restore confidence in the troops. I would have martial law. That, according to the customs of war, is the protection granted to an army of occupation in these circumstances. It is to prohibit actions, primarily those of carrying arms, explosives and ammunition, to the danger of troops. For people caught in possession of arms I would have court martial and execution of the sentence within hours. That is the only means of controlling a

situation such as this. If we mean to win, that is what we should do.
I believe, too, that in districts in which all the women are obstructing the troops there should be a collective punishment, with effective curfews. Till we are prepared to do what the customs of war allow in such situations, I do not think that we can win. I believe that it is unfair to ask our Army to go on in these circumstances.

Mr. James Wellbeloved: Instead of my hon. and learned Friend invoking Nazi-like tactics to deal with the situation, would it not be far better for him to use his words to remove the army of occupation?

Mr. Paget: My hon. Friend can use any pejorative words he likes. He can call the tactics "Nazi-like" or otherwise. The German Army was very effective in protecting itself in occupation, and on the whole did so according to the laws of war.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: It still lost the war.

Mr. Paget: I dare say it still lost. I would prefer adopting these methods to accepting the appalling cruelty of a civil war in Ireland—for that is the alternative Either we take the Army away and there is a civil war in Ireland, or we leave it there. If the Army is left there, it is only fair to give it the proper protection that in any other war circumstances it always would have been given—the power to protect itself. the power to win the war in which we have engaged it and in which we have caused it to suffer. It is wrong and unfair to deny the Army the means of winning the war. If we will the end we should will the means.

Mr. A. W. Stallard: Does my hon. and learned Friend realise that I have listened with horror and sadness to his mischievous and dangerous contribution to the debate? How does he explain the concept of an army of occupation in a part of the United Kingdom? This is a concept which people who recognise and accept that the North is a part of the United Kingdom find very difficult to follow. We were told the other day that British soldiers were at home in the Six Counties. My hon. and learned


Friend now says that they are an army of occupation. Will he enlarge on this?

Mr. Paget: Once an army is brought in for the primary purpose of defending and supporting the civil power against rebellion it becomes an army of occupation in any ordinary sense of the word.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: I support what the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has said. He referred to the present situation in Northern Ireland. The situation in the past 24 hours has been worse than pretty well any 24 hours in the past three years. There have been serious riots at Maze Prison, buses have been hijacked and set on fire with the passengers still on board, bombs have been set off and one person has been assassinated.
I see that my right hon. Friend disagrees. If he selects any day at random in the period up to March of last year before the appointment of the Dip-lock Commission—that was in September, I believe—and before Stormont was suspended, he will find that the situation today is as bad as it has ever been.
Despite all the experiments of right hon. and hon. Members opposite and those of my right hon. Friend with new constitutions, plebiscites, local authority elections, and the new Assembly election, the security position is very serious. I do not know how anyone who has read the report of the Diplock Commission could table an amendment such as that in the names of right hon. and hon. Member's opposite.
I agree completely with what the hon. and learned Member for Northampton said about weakening the provisions of the Bill. I do not like to see emergency measures set out. The House must remember that Parliament's primary duty is to maintain law and order. We must ask ourselves whether this Government and the immediately preceding Government have failed in their duty of preserving, or perhaps restoring, law and order in Northern Ireland.
There is no doubt that the provisions of the common law, of which we in this country are so proud, favour the accused. The hon. and learned Gentleman

referred to one case. He will perhaps recall the details of another case in which four men were arrested in a car. A gun was found in the car. The men were charged with and tried for possession of arms. None of them would plead; they all claimed to be Republicans and not to recognise the court. The result of that trial and appeal was that the men were released simply because, applying the ordinary principles of common law, it could not be established which of the four, if any one of them, was guilty of possession of the firearm. How in the circumstances prevailing can anyone get away with that?
Many hon. Members have visited Northern Ireland and have seen for themselves the results of the last three years of violence and destruction there. Murders take place daily, bombs are set off at random having been planted in busy thoroughfares, shops or public houses and other places, and many people are injured for life. The number of people who have been thus murdered now numbers 850, and the number mounted seriously in the past year. How can ordinary citizens be expected to stand up to this?
The common law favours the accused. The proof is in the number of murders committed in Northern Ireland. Every one of the 850 killed have been murdered, but how many convictions have there been? How many people have been charged even? The number of convictions can be counted on the fingers of one hand. How does the House expect the public in Northern Ireland to stand for that and not react? Our duty is to restore law and order and we must use the measures set out in the Bill. The situation demands nothing less than those measures.
I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Northampton that even stronger measures should be used. The hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) referred to the army of occupation in Northern Ireland. [Interruption.]

Mr. Wellbeloved: I would describe them as tethered goats.

Mr. McMaster: The obvious answer is that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and the Army there is the Army of the United Kingdom. It is


there because the Labour Government chose to take control of the security situation in 1969. They appointed a famous mountaineer to investigate and, following the report of the committee headed by him, they suspended the local militia. As the hon. and learned Member said, the situation could be cleared up in a few weeks by the security forces, given the will. The situation in August 1969 could have been cleared up in a few days and 850 lives could have been saved and millions of pounds of damage avoided had the politicians in this House not interfered and had the local militia been allowed to continue.
There is frustration in Northern Ireland. How much can the people there be expected to stand for? They are in an intolerable situation, and unless justice can be seen to be done, unless those who are guilty of the offences are brought quickly to justice, the pressures there will increase daily. There is growing polarisation of feeling. Hatred grows. There is a pressure for public demonstrations which makes the job of the security forces more and more difficult. The only way to ease the situation is to let it be seen that those who are responsible for crimes are being put away—are being arrested and either tried in the ordinary course of events or brought to justice under the provisions of the Bill. It must be seen that they are not being acquitted by juries who are being intimidated. Unless that happens, the difficulties facing the security forces will become impossible and the reconcilation for which we all aim will become even more difficult to achieve. We must restore law and order, and we must do so rapidly. It is necessary, therefore, to set aside the ordinary principles of common law, and it is for that reason that I totally oppose the clause.

Mr. Michael English: Hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee on the Bill will be aware that it created some strange bedfellows. For example, my hon. Friends and I found ourselves on the same side in Divisions as the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), which is a mysterious situation. It should be pointed out that when my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) and the hon. Member for Antrim, North voted with the Labour Party they repre-

sented an overwhelming body of people in Northern Ireland. Now we have a strange alliance between my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) and the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster).
I am sorry that the debate seems to have strayed far from the new clause. I did not hear the hon. Member for Belfast, East mention the clause once. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton, possibly because he is a learned Member, managed to mention it in the early part of his speech. However, they are both speaking as though everybody in this House was out of step but themselves. Surely they realise that there are hon. Members of reasonable intelligence in this House who do not agree with them? I suggest to them that my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) and the Secretary of State, the two people who have been primarily responsible for dealing with this difficult situation, are not the least able politicians in the United Kingdom.
Everyone in this House is well aware of the possibility of complete and absolute repression in Northern Ireland. But that would be politically undesirable and also, probably, politically impossible. We could summon a few East German experts for advice on how to close the border completely, but what of the international repercussions? What about the feelings of the people of this country? We could close the courts and declare martial law throughout the Province, as my hon. and learned Friend advocates. But the people on this side of the water, let alone the people of Ulster, would not stand for it. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) remarked that the Nazis had lost the war. If we employed their methods as my hon. and learned Friend advocates we should probably lose too.

Mr. McMaster: How did we defeat the Nazis? Did we do so by concessions and by loving them?

Mr. English: Among other things, we did it with the support of the very brave people who were in the Resistance movement in the occupied countries in Europe, people who resisted the Nazis because they objected to the methods they used to rule. They, too, were called terrorists.
[Interruption.] Having been a PPS, which is a situation similar to that of a Whip, I sympathise with hon. Members like my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), who must remain silent in circumstances in which they would much rather be allowed to speak. It is not because other people in this House do not realise that such measures as were advocated by my hon. and learned Friend could be employed that they have not been suggested. They have not been suggested because we recognise that they are politically impossible and undesirable.
Many of the problems at which this Bill is aimed could be solved by a simple process. We could hold the trials in Britain. But I can imagine the protests that would bring from Unionists as well as from supporters of the IRA and the SDLP. I can imagine the protests which would be made throughout Ireland from both sides if it was suggested that these trials were held in England before an English jury. The protests would illustrate that although Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom it is a most unusual part.

Mr. John E. Magimiis: Would not the same thing arise if the trial was held in Lancashire and was then transferred to London?

Mr. English: I do not agree. Trials are often held in the Old Bailey for offences committed in all parts of England, but not from Northern Ireland.

Mr. Maginnis: The hon. Member must be fair. If he had been reading his Press he would know that at least 12 people from Northern Ireland had been tried at the Old Bailey in recent times.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. English: I think we are straying even further from the point. Although we agree that in the circumstances of Northern Ireland something of the nature of the Bill is needed, other hon. Members may say that we should go further. Some do. Other hon. Members may say that we should not go so far. Some do. But most hon. Members, especially on the Opposition side, agree that something of this nature is necessary.
The primary reason for the new clause is that we consider that the scheduled

offences go too far. It is no use the Solicitor-General saying that there is a backlog of 550 cases, because the backlog entirely depends on the acceptance of the definition of scheduled offences in Schedule 3. He correctly stated that the Attorney-General of Northern Ireland, for example, could say that a scheduled offence was not to be treated as a scheduled offence. He did not say that that may be true of murder or manslaughter but not true of every other offence. For example, if someone burns a hay rick because he is having a feud with his next-door neighbour—not an uncommon variety of arson—it is a scheduled offence, even if the argument is about the wife of one of the men involved rather than about the Republican status of Northern Ireland. Similarly, if someone possesses, or uses, an imitation firearm—which is highly dangerous in Northern Ireland, or in London, because he is liable to get shot—he is treated exactly the same as if he were using a real firearm. That is likely to encourage people to use a real firearm, rather than an imitation one. Again, if someone robs a bank, not to obtain funds for Republicans or extremists on the opposite side but to get cash for his own pocket, it is also a scheduled offence.
The extent of Schedule 3 is the real reason for our new clause. My right hon. Friends believe that the list of scheduled offences is far too wide for the purposes for which it is intended. We accept that there is a reason and purpose for it, but it does not have to be carried out in such an extreme way. Rather than have a blanket provision, we propose the relatively simple procedure of suggesting to a High Court judge in private that it is necessary, because of the circumstances of Northern Ireland, to have a particular case treated as a scheduled offence.
We do not believe that in so doing we are betraying the Army in Northern Ireland or betraying the people of Northern Ireland. On the contrary, we believe that we are still offering to the people of Northern Ireland, even if they are accused of offences, as much protection as is feasible in the circumstances and, at the same time, assisting the forces of law and order to succeed.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I did not originally intend to contribute to the debate, but the speech of my hon. and learned Friend


the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), and the reaction of some hon. Members to it, has provoked me to say a few words.
I fundamentally disagree with the solution which my hon. and learned Friend proposes, which would be to try to introduce into Northern Ireland, via the British Forces there, tactics which would be unacceptable to the House, and the country—

Mr. J. D. Concannon: And to the British Forces.

Mr. Wellbeloved: I agree with my hon. Friend, who served so distinguishedly as a Regular soldier.
The solution which my hon. and learned Friend suggests cannot be put into operation. But when hon. Members try to decry my hon. and learned Friend for legitimately presenting the views of the British Army and the feeling of at least some soldiers about the problems and burdens imposed upon them, he has my full support, and I would defend him from being shouted down by any hon. Member on either side. It is about time the feelings of the British Army in Ireland were properly expressed in the documented form in which my hon. and learned Friend presented them. I tell the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) that I did not describe the British Army as an army of occupation: I was using the words of my hon. and learned Friend.
I number myself among those who are not the Secretary of State's bosom friends. I am not one of those who say that he is a jolly good fellow. To me he is a Conservative Minister who has supported every reactionary measure the present Government have put forward, and he does not become a good friend just because some of my hon. Friends happen to agree with him on this one aspect of policy. Although I am not a bosom friend of the right hon. Gentleman, I recognise the burden carried by anyone who occupies the position of Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—the responsibility, the worry, the sleeplessness. But the right hon. Gentleman must not become too sensitive to other hon. Members like my hon. and learned Friend, and, if I may say so with modesty, myself, who take an absolutely different view from that which he holds. We have

every right to express in the House our views about the present policy and alternative policies without being accused by the right hon. Gentleman of being offensive.

Mr. Whitelaw: I am not being in the least sensitive. I was arguing with the hon. Gentleman the other night something that I believe to be right, and when I intervened in the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), it was very important that I should do so. Very adverse statements were made about generals, who cannot speak for themselves. They are responsible in some measure to me in Northern Ireland, and I thought it right to speak up for them.

Mr. Wellbeloved: The right hon. Gentleman has that right, and if he does it in the spirit in which he has done it today no one will take exception. But I hope that the burdens of his office will not make him intolerant of, and insensitive to, the opinions of other people and their duty to give expressions to those opinions in the House. The right hon. Gentleman will perhaps understand why at least I think he is moving towards that position. I am glad that he is resuming his more jovial attitude this afternoon.
My hon. and learned Friend used the terms "acceptable casualty rate" and "duty targets" of the British Army in Northern Ireland. Those expressions are being used by British troops in Northern Ireland. I have spoken to soldiers on leave in this country who have used them. That is how they see themselves in Northern Ireland. They believe that the Government are prepared, as indeed they are, whether we pass the clause or not, to have an acceptable casualty rate, and that they are "duty targets" when they perform their duties.
Whatever happens to the clause, the right hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that those soldiers in Northern Ireland who believe that they are there as "an acceptable casualty rate" and "duty targets" are upholding a constitutional Bill passed by 97 votes of the House—and that is a disgrace.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Although it may not seem so after three-quarters of an hour's debate, the clause arose from a very detailed Committee stage when the


Opposition tried to improve the Bill, which makes changes in the rules of the courts and, in Schedule 1, formalises the Detention of Terrorists Order.
Confidence in the law is an important part of our way of life in the United Kingdom, and our changes are not designed to weaken the security forces. All that we have argued is that the scheduled offences part of the Bill should be reconsidered, and that the judge in every case should have to decide that in the particular instance the offence is a scheduled offence. The clause says no more and no less than that. The Solicitor-General argues differently.
Our argument should not have given rise to the point of view of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster), who says the same thing every time he speaks. What he argued today could not possibly have arisen from our amendment.
If confidence in the law is important in any community, confidence in leaders is important in the Armed Forces. I do not believe that the general view put forward by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), on the basis of a few cases, is the overall view of the Armed Forces in Northern Ireland, though there may well be some people who feel that way. On the one occasion that I went out on patrol with other hon. Members in Belfast with the paratroopers, I must confess that I felt exactly like a duty target, as my hon. and learned Friend suggested, but I do not believe that that is the general view of the Services in Northern Ireland.
In reply to my hon. and learned Friend's views about martial law about what the troops should do, instant law, and so on, I say only that it is not the first time they have been suggested for Ireland. The story of Ireland from Henry II to Cromwell is littered with people who suggested that method and carried it out. See what good that does in the long run.

Mr. Paget: It is precisely the method that was used by Mr. Cosgrave's father, by Mr. Griffiths and by Mr. Collins when they established the Free State in Ireland—and it worked.

Mr. Rees: My hon. and learned Friend may argue that it has worked, but if I

take him up on that argument we shall go into a Third Reading debate, which I am trying to avoid.
I hope that the hon. Member for Belfast, East will bear with me while I reveal to him one view that I have on Ireland that I do not think I have ever put forward. When he talks as he does, he sometimes needles me—I nearly said "beyond the pale", but that, too, would show an Irish background. I once fought an election in which the Tory candidate had as the main plank in his platform the allegation that Labour voters had stayed at home while the Tories won the war. I was with my father when he was dying from being gassed. My wife held me back and said Leave the man alone. He is a buffoon and a fool, and even if he gets elected to the House of Commons"—as he did—"he will one day suffer for it." On the day when he did suffer, I told her "Sister were you right!"
I am saying this to the hon. Gentleman because my father was a soldier at the battle of the Somme. He never went around parading about it. Maybe he was a good loyal member of the Labour Party who thought that those things were best forgotten. He was also taken as a soldier to Ireland in 1916. This is not the first time that my family has been involved in Ireland. When I see the hon. Gentleman looking towards the Opposition as if in some way we are soft or murderers and the like, he is wrong and I wish that lie would stop doing so.

5.15 p.m.

Every time the hon. Member talks the way he does he would create another three members of the IRA if he could be heard in Ireland. Let me not hear from the hon. Gentleman his attitude that only he is concerned with the IRA. I am concerned with the IRA and the UVF. The pair of them are not doing any good to Northern Ireland.

Mr. McMaster: The hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) argued that it had not been established that there was any intimidation in Northern Ireland. It was from that basis that I was arguing that the clause, if based on that argument, is misguided. The main point which has been made by the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) arises from a misunderstanding—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): Is this a speech or an intervention?

Mr. McMaster: The main point of my intervention is that all the work which has been done by the Government and the Opposition to find an answer has not solved the problem in Northern Ireland. Sooner or later we shall have to deal with the IRA, and I want it to be sooner.

Mr. Rees: I am seeking to argue in broad terms that the Government are

Question accordingly negatived.

right to go along the political road. There is nothing offensive about the Opposition supporting that approach. We naïvely thought that we had come here to talk about scheduled offences. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will vote for the new clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 76, Noes 93.

Division No. 187.]
AYES
[5.20 p.m.


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Atkinson, Norman
Heffer, Eric S.
Pavitt, Laurie


Bishop, E. S.
Horam, John
Pendry, Tom


Booth, Albert
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Prescott, John


Boothroyd, Miss B. (West Brom.)
Janner, Greville
Radice, Giles


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Kaufman, Gerald
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Kerr, Russell
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Dunnett, Jack
Lamborn, Harry
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


English, Michael
Lawson, George
Silverman, Julius


Ewing, Harry
Leonard, Dick
Skinner, Dennis


Faulds, Andrew
Lipton, Marcus
Stallard, A. W.


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Swain, Thomas


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
McAliskey, Mrs. Bernadette
Tope, Graham


Foot, Michael
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Urwin, T. W.


Fraser, John (Norwood)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Wainwright, Edwin


Freeson, Reginald
Marquand, David
Wallace, George


Carmichael, Neil
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Whitlock, William


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Millan, Bruce
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Gilbert, Dr. John
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Golding, John
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)



Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Orme, Stanley
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Oswald, Thomas
Mr. James A. Dunn and


Harper, Joseph
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Mr. J. D. Concannon.


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)



NOES


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Hall, Sir John (Wycombe)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Atkins, Humphrey
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Awdry, Daniel
Hastings, Stephen
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Benyon, W.
Havers, Sir Michael
Raison, Timothy


Biggs-Davison, John
Hawkins, Paul
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Hayhoe, Barney
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Bowden, Andrew
Holland, Philip
Redmond, Robert


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hunt, John
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Chapman, Sydney
James, David
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Churchill, W. S.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Shersby, Michael


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Jopling, Michael
Sinclair, Sir George


Clegg, Walter
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Skeet, T. H. H.


Cooke, Robert
Kilfedder, James
Stanbrook, Ivor


Coombs, Derek
Knox, David
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Cooper, A. E.
Luce, R. N.
Sutcliffe, John


Cormack, Patrick
McMaster, Stanley
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Critchley, Julian
Maginnis, John E.
Tebbit, Norman


Crouch, David
Marten, Neil
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Mather, Carol
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Dixon, Piers
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Tugendhat, Christopher


Dykes, Hugh
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Moate, Roger
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Molyneaux, James
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Ward, Dame Irene


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Neave, Airey
Weatherill, Bernard


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Nott, John
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Fortescue, Tim
Onslow, Cranley
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Fowler, Norman
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Green, Alan
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Mr. Marcus Fox and


Gurden, Harold
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Mr. Oscar Murton.

New Clause 2

RIGHT OF CHALLENGE OF JURORS

Notwithstanding any rule of law or practice to the contrary, the right of peremptory challenge of jurors upon trial on indictment in Northern Ireland shall correspond with and be no more extensive than such right as it is exercisable in the Crown Court in England and Wales.—[Mr. Peter Archer.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Peter Archer (Rowley Regis and Tipton): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are to take new Clause 3—Jury service—
Her Majesty may by Order in Council make provision in relation to Northern Ireland for purposes corresponding to those provided for in Part II of and Schedule 2 to the Criminal Justice Act 1972 in respect of juries in criminal causes and for the payment by the Ministry of any expenses incurred by virtue of the Order.

Amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 21, leave out Clause 2.

Amendment No. 29, in the Title, line 5, after 'crime', insert:
'; to amend the law about qualification for jury service and payments in respect thereof and about challenging jurors;'.

all standing also in the name of the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) and the names of his right hon. and hon. Friends.

Mr. Archer: I can describe the purpose of Amendment No. 1 in one sentence: it proposes to dispense with the erosion of trial by jury. The merits of that proposal have been rehearsed again and again during the passage of the Bill—indeed, to some extent they were rehearsed again in the last debate. I do not propose to repeat them, the House may be relieved to hear.
The Government are aware of our feelings about the proposal to whittle away the right to trial by jury, and we on our part are aware of why the Government propose to take what on the face of it is a startling step. Their reasons were elaborated by the Attorney-General on Second Reading and have been described in detail since. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) that in this case the Government and the Opposition are

not necessarily bosom friends—we just understand one another's positions because we have heard them described so frequently. The fact that I do not repeat all our arguments does not reflect any change of view on my part.
New Clause 2 suggests an alternative method of meeting the problems with which the Government are confronted. The same is true of new Clause 3, and Amendment No. 29 is simply consequential on new Clause 2. As I understand it, the Government's case is that they recognise that their proposals infringe the traditional safeguards which, in other circumstances, would be regarded as vital to our liberties and way of life, but that there is no alternative, that the problem of preserving law and order, of saving life and of combating terrorism entails that there is no other way. The form of that argument is in two steps. First, it is vital that those suspected of terrorism should be convicted so that they can be imprisoned; secondly, they are unlikely to be convicted before a jury in present conditions. We have discussed the first step more than once, and I do not propose to say anything about it now.
In Committee my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) probed at some length the whole structure of the Government's argument and did not receive answers. But again I do not propose to take that kind of analysis any further. These new clauses and amendments are simply concerned with the second step in the argument, and it is that which we wish to explore today.
5.30 p.m.
On Second Reading the Attorney-General suggested that it was impossible. or at least very difficult, to obtain convictions before juries in Northern Ireland because of two things—either they were prejudiced in favour of the accused or they were open to intimidation. Excluding for a moment the absence of evidence of intimidation—we probed into that in Committee—I remind the House that the Attorney-General said that he regarded intimidation as the major of the two problems. He explained the absence of evidence on the thesis that every single juror who has ever been


approached with a view to possible intimidation was immediately so intimidated that he made no complaint. I leave that aside also.
But the right hon. and learned Gentleman went on to say that the right of challenge in Northern Ireland is much more widespread than it is in England. He pointed out that each defendant in Northern Ireland has the right to 12 peremptory challenges—that is to say, to challenges without assigning any reason, simply to object to the presence of a juror without further argument. Presumably, the relevance of the point made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman is that the accused can whittle away a jury until he has eliminated anyone who is likely to convict him.
As I understand it, the right hon. and learned Gentleman was saying that there is no similar opportunity open to the Crown to eliminate all those who are likely to want to acquit, because the Crown normally stands by only for the purpose of protecting a juryman. Again, I accept that.
If there were any doubt as to the relevance of that argument, the right hon. and learned Gentleman reiterated it in Committee, at the Committee's sitting of 8th May when he said that he was thinking primarily of situations where the accused was a Protestant. I understood him to be saying that the accused could use his right of challenge to secure an all-Protestant jury. That led to an element of indignation from the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) but I do not propose to comment on that debate either. Indeed, this speech will be chiefly remarkable for the number of matters on which I am abstaining from comment.
But let us accept that these are the difficulties and problems with which the Government are confronted. The Opposition say that if the situation leads to difficulties by reason of the present extent of peremptory challenge, surely it is better to limit the right of peremptory challenge than to abrogate the right to trial by jury. To argue that the present right of challenge makes jury trial unworkable and that, therefore, we should abolish jury trial is like arguing that the remedy for tight shoes is not bigger shoes but cutting off one's feet.
Therefore, new Clause 2 proposes that if the problems of jury trial arise from the extent of the right of challenge the proper solution is to restrict the right of challenge. We propose that it should be restricted in accordance with the similar right in this country, set out in paragraph 428A of "Archbold". This provision is, broadly, that each defendant should have the right to seven peremptory challenges. But we would not stick to that figure. If the Government were to say that they could not solve the problem without reducing the right further than that, we, being open-minded on the matter, would not be oblivious to the problem and would attempt to meet them.
The second argument advanced by the Attorney-General is that the burden of litigation on the limited number of people who qualify for jury service in Northern Ireland presents a further problem. He told us that in Northern Ireland it was normal to try civil cases before juries. We would reply that if that is how the problem arises, is it not better to abrogate the right to trial in civil cases rather than to take away the right of defendants to trial in criminal cases? If it will assist to select juries from a wider panel we will listen again to the arguments and go out of cur way to meet the point. That is the purpose of new Clause 3.
What the Opposition are saying is that they are trying to recognise the difficulties. We are certainly not oblivious to the problem of terrorism, and we are as anxious to combat and control it as anyone else. But if those are the Government's problems we want to ensure that their proposals are relevant to the solution. If there is a more acceptable alternative, we propose that alternative. We do not assent to the erosion of these fund-mental rights when there is a more acceptable method of meeting the difficulties. These are steps which should be taken only as a last resort. If we concede every other step in the argument, we do not concede this unless we are convinced that there is no other method of meeting the problem.

The Attorney-General (Sir Peter Rawlinson): The hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer) has said that he recognises the problems. His hon. and learned


Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) in an earlier speech, in a rather lofty way if he will forgive me, did not seem to recognise the problems which exist in the Province and in the administration of justice there. The proposals put forward which go to the right of challenge or the removal of the burden of civil litigation on a jury are not sufficient.
The hon. and learned Member for Dulwich said that he had not been given any examples. I gave this information in my Second Reading speech. The hon. and learned Member said that he had read that but was not impressed by it. I will give further examples and opinions and views of the area assistant directors. These are not people sitting in chambers in London or on the benches in the House of Commons. They are engaged in the conduct of prosecutions in Northern Ireland. One of them received a letter bomb, and in the subsequent explosion one of his partners sustained injury. These are the men to whose judgment we should pay attention.
There have been other cases since I spoke on 8th May. I will try not to identify organisations in the examples that I am giving. A man joined an extremist organisation and then changed his mind and wanted no more of it. He was removed from his house by car by three men whom he subsequently identified. He was beaten with a pick shaft. The same three men took him to his house and told him that he had got off lightly. On the clearest evidence that the three accused men had done this there was an acquittal on assault and false imprisonment and disagreement on intimidation.
In another case three men in a car were stopped by the police. Explosives were found in the car. The jury disagreed. Two guns and 30 rounds of ammunition were found in the house of an accused in a district dominated by an extremist group. His defence was that they were needed for protection against another group. He was acquitted. A man was recently fatally shot in a pub. The accused was identified by several witnesses as having fired the shot. The jury did not convict. These are the kind of cases which occur regularly throughout the Province.
Let me give some figures. In the city of Londonderry there is a small panel from which the jury can be drawn. Anyone who knows anything about Londonderry knows that the jurors are very vulnerable. There have been 17 cases involving violence or membership of the IRA. There were four convictions at the beginning of the assizes and then the IRA began challenging. There followed eight acquittals and five disagreements, and there was no conviction for IRA membership despite clear evidence.
There was a verdict of "not guilty" in an attempted murder case, and a disagreement in a case of possession of an unlawful substance. Both of these were, in the opinion of the area director, glaring examples of perverse verdicts. In Armagh there were six cases and no convictions. There were two acquittals by direction and two by verdict. One was a particularly serious UDA case, a double murder, and another was a firearms case. Again in the opinion of the area director the acquittal was "perverse".
In Armagh County Court there were six cases. One was withdrawn from the jury. There were two convictions when persons of one sect were tried by a jury consisting wholly of members of another sect. There were three disagreements with mixed juries. The inevitable conclusion is that mixed juries have a sectarian bias and that neither side is willing to give way.
In the Spring Assizes outside Belfast, in the whole of the Province, of the 91 persons tried only 32 were convicted, about 15 from Antrim. In Armagh and Fermanagh there were 12 persons tried and no convictions. In the city of Belfast from January to 21st June there were 92 cases, 62 convictions, 28 acquittals and two disagreements. That is a conviction rate of 67 per cent. or, taking the number of persons, a conviction rate of 65 per cent. In Belfast city a conviction rate of 79 per cent. is not unknown.
An element in these statistics on conviction is that 47 persons refused to recognise the court. They were IRA violence cases. All such cases which went to a jury resulted in convictions. An artificial element is introduced into these Belfast figures. In considering and


assessing the conduct of juries it has to be remembered that non-recognition is likely to carry implications of guilt even to a person doing his very best as a juror.
The conviction rate in the city of Belfast has been achieved only by the Crown "standing by" jurors extensively and trying to obtain jurors from trouble-free and, therefore, usually middle-class areas. In 1972 it was possible to empanel jurors from four-fifths of the Belfast geographic area. By 1973 only half of that area was available because the violence had spread from Andersonstown and Ardoyne into what were called the loyalist areas of north Belfast. This has imposed a tremendous burden on the jurors.
The Crown seeks to get a jury as far removed as possible from pressures which might be brought by the ethnic group to which the accused belongs. That is only fair to the courts and the jurors. Up to 50 per cent. of those on the jury panel apply to be excused from jury service and are so excused. They employ every possible excuse, and that is wholly understandable.
5.45 p.m.
The spread of the violence to previously quiet areas has limited the area from which there can be selected jurors who will be free from fear in carrying out their work. It is, therefore, harder to select a jury. The practice is to omit jurors who come from trouble-beset areas. If that is done there are fewer jurors from whom to draw and there is left only South Belfast. If, contrary to what I shall invite the House to do, the amendment is accepted and the Bill provides for the retention of juries and all terrorist cases are brought to Belfast, it will be necessary for those courts to sit all the time, and it will be impossible to obtain and administer the juries. It is only because of the standby that we have been able to get the conviction rate I mentioned in Belfast.
Each accused has 12 challenges and the prosecution can stand by. If the Crown does not exercise its powers the accused can, through challenges, pack a jury on sectarian lines. Sometimes the Crown has to use this standby process. In one case the Crown used 49 standbys before getting a jury consisting of people who

did not come from areas near where the accused lived or the immediate area in which the crime had been committed—and various other considerations. That was a case in which eventually a jury convicted a Protestant of the murder of a Catholic.

Mr. Peter Archer: What the right hon. and learned Gentleman said on Second Reading in April was that the Crown stands by only to protect a juror. Is he saying that that practice has changed since April?

The Attorney-General: No. I am saying that violence has spread. We have to take into account now that more people are likely to be intimidated or likely to sustain injury because of their conduct at the trial. The general practice is for the Crown to stand by those who are acquainted with the accused, those living near him or those who live in the immediate area where the crime was committed. The Crown stands by people whose businesses are vulnerable—publicans, café owners, bookmakers—and people who live in or near the fringe of areas where terrorist activities are based. I will a little later quote what has been said by some area assistant directors about getting a jury. To get a jury consisting of people who will be clear, as far as one can see, from the influences of fear and intimidation, that is what has to be done. The standby of 49 which I mentioned was a unique case but on more than one or two occasions it has been necessary to stand by about 25 persons before a jury has been selected.
Since the office of Director of Public Prosecutions has been established, determined efforts have been made to avoid sectarian standbys by the Crown, but with the accused using their challenges there is no chance of conviction and no chance of a fair trial unless the Crown stands by. New Clause 2 may limit the right of peremptory challenges to the right that exists in England and Wales, but excessive challenges in cases which involve more than one accused may aggravate the present problem although they are not the prime cause of it. The Crown has to retain the right to challenge. To reduce that right would lead to more challenges by the accused and more delays. If there were a limit, the


Crown would have to be limited proportionately.
Until recently jury qualifications and the numerical minority of Catholics ensured that juries were predominantly Protestant. That appears from the Diplock Report. In those circumstances it was unlikely that there would be many perverse acquittals against a Catholic accused. Now, the increase of Loyalist violence has brought terrorists on the other side to court, and conditions of possible perverse verdicts have emerged—as I warned the Committee. The same possibility would arise if a predominantly Catholic jury were to try a Catholic accused. There are in mind proposed widenings of jury qualifications to anyone on the electoral roll. That may change the balance of Catholic and Protestant on juries in some cases.
New Clause 3 proposes changes in the qualifications of jurors which would he effected by Order-in-Council. This should be done and will be done, but it is not the solution that is called for in this Emergency Provisions Bill. The same applies with the jury qualifications, which would mean bringing more Protestants than Catholics on to the jury list. That is something that should and will he done.
The House must get back to the question why there are these perverse decisions. If the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich believes that there are not perverse decisions and if he thinks that they are tolerable in the administration of criminal justice, I do not believe that he is speaking with the experience which I know he has in all other fields when he addresses the House.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: I am sorry that the Attorney-General should have made that remark, which is quite unjustified. If I really thought—as he suggested—that there were no perverse verdicts I would not have moved new Clause 1, which deals with that very point, but in a particular rather than a general way. I regret that the figures which the Attorney-General was asked for in Committee were never given.

The Attorney-General: The House listens to the hon. and learned Gentleman with great respect, as I do. when he addresses the House on many matters.
I do not in any way wish to impugn his integrity. I am speaking only of his judgment on this matter. I beg him to have regard to the experience of the assistant area directors who have the duty of trying to administer criminal justice. Perverse decisions come from the fear of reprisals—not necessarily physical assaults. In Londonderry there were four convictions, and then the accused started to challenge and the acquittals and disagreements followed. People are afraid not necessarily of physical assault but that they may be ostracised by the neighbourhood for having behaved in a certain way. That applies not only in the city of Londonderry but elsewhere.
If a Protestant has stood out for the conviction of another Protestant who is standing trial, that fact will become known and he will suffer in the same way as would a Catholic juryman. There is also the fear of being dubbed a traitor or—a term that some hon. Gentlemen will know better—a lundy. That fear is a real one. It arises when a person is not standing up for his own, is not looking after his own but is betraying the group to which he belongs. So long as there are sectarian barriers coupled with the present state of bitterness. violence and disorder, there will be perverse verdicts, and they will arise mostly in important and notorious cases. They are the cases in which one finds disagreements or perverse verdicts.
The effect of these matters on police morale, on the morale of the security forces and, indeed, on any person who is called to give evidence can be imagined. Every perverse verdict is an encouragement to violence.
I wish to quote directly from the reports which I have received from area assistant directors. These directors are members of the staff of the Director of Public Prosecutions; they are drawn from both sides of the sectarian barrier in the community. This is what one of them says:
About 90 per cent. of all cases coming for trial to the Commission"—
that is, the Belfast City Commission—
involve offences relating to firearms, explosives or robberies with a so-called political motivation. Some accused involved in these offences refuse to recognise the Court while many others plead duress as a defence. Duress is a common defence and it is said by the many persons who raise it that in large areas


of Belfast law and order is minimal and intimidation rife. This being so, I feel it right to stand by any juror who comes from an area in which terrorists operate or an area bordering it.
Intimidation of persons in Protestant areas is now much more frequent and is reflected in the increasing numbers of jurors which I am forced to stand by. Since March 1973 there has been a marked increase in the number of Protestants appearing before the Commission. Indeed, I think there are now more Protestants than Roman Catholics appearing on the so-called political offences. These persons are not involved in any one particular type of offence. Their offences encompass the entire spectrum from murder through explosives, firearms to car hijacking.
The area assistant director goes on to say:
At the Commission jurors who serve tend to be middle-aged and middle-class but not all male. They are not all drawn from one section of the community although the Protestant accused is at a decided advantage in having his case heard before a jury of his co-religionists. There are so many more Protestants called for service and so many more who live in comparatively peaceful areas. The one feature about the Belfast jury which I suggest is of the greatest importance for the fair administration of justice is its anonymity.
Another area assistant director of Armagh says:
It is my expectation that in the future a great number of disagreements can be expected from County Armagh juries, even in nonpolitical cases and despite the strongest evidence either for or against the accused…. Despite this, however, it appears that a number of persons who in every way could be regarded as honest citizens were unable as jury members to make a fair decision.
The third area assistant director says:
The big question is why are Protestants jurors not prepared to convict Protestants who are accused of political-type offences and likewise why are Catholic jurors not prepared to convict Catholic accused persons charged with political offences?
He then says:
I am of the opinion that the reason is two-fold—first, fear of reprisal and, secondly, fear of being dubbed a traitor (or lundy) in their own communities…. If a Catholic is serving on a mostly Protestant jury and if he fails to disagree, it is quite likely that the other jurors will mention this fact when they are discussing what went on in the jury room. It is not hard to imagine how such information can percolate back to the Roman Catholic juror's own district…. On the other hand, it is even more likely that a Protestant on a mainly Protestant jury who favours a conviction in a political-type of case can confidently fear that his attitude will be bandied about in circles which will ultimately arrive in his district.

The area assistant director goes on to say:
The Courts are failing in their function…. I have had perverse verdicts before but they were in non-political cases, but recent verdicts have spelt out clearly to me that the jury system is just not working.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Maginnis: I am sure that the Attorney-General will agree that the big worry in the areas outside Belfast, especially in the county of Armagh, is that it is almost impossible to get anybody for jury service. My information is that people would rather do anything than serve on a jury. I am grateful to the Attorney-General for giving us the figures, and I hope that this will underline to the House the necessity for the measures which he is introducing.

The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Mr. Maginnis), who knows the situation so well, has correctly said that it is with the very greatest reluctance that people will come forward to serve on a jury. They are afraid of offending somebody and of finding themselves in a position of extreme danger—and not only in regard to themselves but their families or their homes by some form of reprisal. This is the considered opinion of those area assistant directors in Armagh whose comments I have quoted. It is the considered opinion of the Director of Public Prosecutions. He says that if juries are to he dispensed with, it should be done at the earliest possible moment before the Autumn Assizes or the opening of the new City Commission.
I have said ever since the Second Reading of this Bill that I am satisfied that for the proper administration of justice—if that is what this House wants—juries must be abolished for this temporary period. I invite the House to reject these amendments.

Mr. McMaster: My hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Mr. Maginnis) referred to the situation in his area, and I shall speak of the situation in East Belfast.
In East Belfast we have an area on one side of the river, the dock area, which is predominantly Roman Catholic and more particularly consists of Republicans. It is a very dangerous area. On the other


side of the river there is a normal kind of area which, until comparatively recently, has not been the object of violence. But if a person coming from the dock area is charged it is impossible to obtain a jury from his side of the town and, more important, a jury which will arrive at a fair verdict. This is happening because jurors are frightened. I have had complaints from such people.
There is no one in Northern Ireland who is not afraid of what might happen to him. Nobody feels safe. It need not be established that there is direct intimidation of every juror, but a Crown witness can be shot, as indeed one was shot in my own constituency. I refer to a bus driver called Agnew, who was shot within an hour of giving evidence and of speaking to a detective constable.
One realises that it is impossible to protect each individual, but the problem in Northern Ireland is first one of fear. If one seeks to empanel a jury from the same side of town as that from which the accused comes, people are very frightened because they are living in a riotous area of the city. If, on the other hand, one empanels a jury from the other side of the town, that jury is afraid of victimisation. Is it fair that a person should be tried only by a jury consisting almost entirely, if not entirely, of people with opposite religious beliefs?
I submit that it is impossible for the ordinary jury system to work. It is almost impossible to obtain a balanced jury, a jury that is not subject to fear. I am leaving out considerations of intimidation, because what is relevant is the question whether the juries are frightened. A frightened juror is not a good juror. Such a man is afraid of repercussions against himself, his house and his family. There has already been so much victimisation, violence and terror in the past three years that no one feels safe. Everyone recognises that the police and the Army cannot protect every individual 24 hours of the day round the clock.

Mr. Mather: The right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) is not unaware of the situation. When he and I were driving round last week during the Assembly election, our car passed the house of a

magistrate which had been burned down as a result of this kind of intimidation.

Mr. McMaster: Yes. I can confirm that one magistrate has been killed and that two others have been seriously injured. If it is impossible to protect magistrates and Crown witnesses, how can jurors be protected?
It may be said by some to be an unreasonable fear. But anyone living in Northern Ireland will appreciate it. It is for these reasons, against the background of my own experience of this fear and intimidation, that I advise the House not to accept the amendment.

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Guardianship Act 1973.
2. Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1973.
3. Dentists (Amendment) Act 1973.
4. National Health Service Reorganisation Act 1973.
5. London Transport Act 1973.
6. King's Lynn Corporation Act 1973.
7. British Transport Docks Act 1973.
8. Hull Tidal Surge Barrier Act 1973.

NORTHERN IRELAND (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL

Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Maginnis: I wish to support what my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said about the difficulty of getting people to serve on juries. However, my chief purpose in intervening is to ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to consider one specific matter.
In the rural areas of Northern Ireland there are at present what are known as "small, one farm farmers" who operate on their own. It is very difficult in present circumstances to get anyone to run a farm, to feed cattle, to milk dairy cows, and the rest of it, if a farmer is


called for jury service. In many cases my right hon. Friend has acceded to requests from them to be exempt from jury service on this score. It is not that they do not want to serve. But whereas 10 years ago practically all these farms employed two or three men, today they are run solely by their owners.
I ask my right hon. Friend to look at this position in the future. I know that these farmers all look forward to the day when the need for juries to try these kinds of offences will be done away with. However, in the circumstances some consideration should be given to men in this position.

Mr. Stanley Orme: The Opposition treat this matter with great seriousness. I am sure that the Attorney-General will agree that we did in Committee. It is a matter of great importance to our constitution.
I speak as a non-lawyer. But I am liable to be summoned at any time to what Lord Devlin called "that little Parliament" in order to adjudicate on my fellow citizens. Any proposal to give that up, even under the extreme pressure to which the Attorney-General referred, is one that we cannot accept without thoroughly examining whether further attempts should not be made to maintain the jury system in Northern Ireland.
On Second Reading the Attorney-General made an impressive case to the House on this issue. In Committee his case was not as good. Today the right hon. and learned Gentleman has given the House a good deal more hard information which it would be foolish to say is not impressive. But in our opinion it is still not impressive enough to waive the jury system.
It could be said that this proposal of the Government is a real concession to violence, from whichever side it comes. It could be said that violence has ended the jury system in Northern Ireland. As the Attorney-General pointed out in Committee and again today, the violence is not on one side of the community. It is on both sides. Those of us who visit Northern Ireland quite regularly, however, recognise the concern that there is about justice and about apprehending criminals, bringing them to justice and sentencing them if they are found guilty. Nevertheless the Opposition still feel as

members of a party which has always had a great interest in civil liberties, that, even in the face of perverse decisions, only an overwhelming case will persuade us to give up the jury system even for a short period. The Attorney-General has said that it is to be done only while the emergency lasts and that everyone will want to see its return as soon as possible. But all too often when we do away with a practice for a temporary period it takes on an air of permanence and lasts longer than many of us would like to see.
The Opposition feel that we must stand by the policy which we advocated in Committee, which, incidentally, had the support of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. The decision to abolish the jury system was taken only as a result of the Chairman's casting vote. That shows the seriousness with which the Committee viewed the proposal. It will be seen from the debate in Committee how many hon. Members were troubled by the proposal. The Minister of State, who piloted the Bill through its Committee stage, knows that many of his hon. Friends were deeply concerned.
In Committee the Attorney-General did not make out a case prior to this decision being taken. In spite of the trouble in Northern Ireland in the past 24 hours, when we are attempting new political developments, with the election of the Assembly and with the hope that the Assembly and the Executive will work and create a new atmosphere, it appears to us that, having soldiered on with the jury system so far, this is the wrong moment to do away with it without seeing what the new political developments will bring. We all hope that they will bring peace. However, we cannot accept the explanation given to the House by the Attorney-General. For that reason I ask my hon. Friends to press the amendment.

Question put and negatived.

Clause 2

MODE OF TRIAL ON INDICTMENT OF SCHEDULED OFFENCES

Amendment proposed: No. 1, in page 2, line 21, leave out Clause 2.—[Mr. Orme.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Whitelaw: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 22, leave out from 'jury' to end of line 27.

I know that the House appreciates the reasons why I have left the conduct of this Bill in the immensely capable hands of the Law Officers and my hon. Friend the Minister of State, but I feel

House divided: Ayes 69, Noes 94.

Division No. 188.]
AYES
[6.13 p.m.


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Golding, John
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Bishop, E. S.
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Booth, Albert
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Boothroyd, Miss D. (West Brom.)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Pendry, Tom


Carmichael, Neil
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Prescott, John


Carter, Ray (Birmingham, Northfield)
Heffer, Eric S.
Radice, Giles


Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Concannon, J. D.
Janner, Greville
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Cronin, John
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Davidson, Arthur
Kaufman, Gerald
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Kerr, Russell
Silverman, Julius


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Lamborn, Harry
Skinner, Dennis


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lawson, George
Swain, Thomas


Dunn, James A.
Leonard, Dick
Tope, Graham


Dunnett, Jack
Lipton, Marcus
Wainwright, Edwin


English. Michael
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Wallace, George


Faulds, Andrew
McAliskey, Mrs. Bernadette
Whitlock, William


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Marquand, David
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Foot, Michael
Mellish, Rt. Hon. Robert



Fraser, John (Norwood)
Millan, Bruce
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Freeson, Reginald
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Mr. J. Harper and


Garrett, W. E.
Orme, Stanley
Mr. A. W. Stallard.


Gilbert, Dr. John




NOES


Atkins, Humphrey
Holland, Philip
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Awdry, Daniel
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Benyon, W.
Hunt, John
Redmond, Robert


Biggs-Davison, John
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Bowden, Andrew
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Bryan, Sir Paul
James, David
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Channon, Paul
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Chapman, Sydney
Joplin, Michael
Shersby, Michael


Churchill, W. S.
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Sinclair, Sir George


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Kilfedder, James
Skeet, T. H. H.


Clegg, Walter
Knox, David
Sorel, Harold


Cooke, Robert
Lamont, Norman
Stanbrook, Ivor


Cooper, A. E.
Luce, R. N.
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Cormack, Patrick
McMaster, Stanley
Sutcliffe, John


Critchley, Julian
Maginnis, John E.
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Crouch, David
Marten, Neil
Tebbitt Norman


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Mather, Carol
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Dixon, Piers
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Dykes, Hugh
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Elliot, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Moate, Roger
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Emery, Peter
Molyneaux, James
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Neave, Airey
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Nott, John
Ward, Dame Irene


Fowler, Norman
Onslow, Cranley
Weatherill, Bernard


Fox, Marcus
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Green, Alan
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Gurden, Harold
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch



Hall, Sir John (Wycombe)
Prior, RI. Hn. J. M. L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hastings, Stephen
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Mr. Tim Fortescue and


Havers, Michael
Raison, Timothy
Mr. Oscar Murton.


Hawkins, Paul




Hayhoe, Barney

that the House will expect to hear from me personally why in this amendment we are seeking to reverse the decision made in Committee.

Indeed, I would say to the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who served on the Committee that I would recommend such a course only if I was utterly convinced of the need for the provision as it originally stood in the Bill.

I know that the House as a whole wants to give every possible help to our security forces in Northern Ireland in their vital campaign against violence and terrorism. There is no difference between us on that. I accept at once that those who decide that they cannot support some of these measures are in no way weakening in their resolve to give our security forces every possible aid. At the same time, of course, I appreciate that the exceptional nature of the legal powers which we are seeking in this Bill properly raise doubts and anxieties, as they do in this particular case. It is against that background that I want to set out the reasons which led the Government to suggest in the Bill as introduced that the trials of scheduled offences should be by a single judge.

In this respect, the Government followed the recommendation of the commission chaired by Lord Diplock. The commission's conclusion in paragraph 39 was as follows:
But we should in any event recommend trial by a single High Court judge or, in the less serious cases, by a single County Court judge, in preference to a collegiate trial. Non-jury trials in civil actions are always conducted by a single judge alone. Our oral adverserial system of procedure is ill adapted to the collegiate conduct of a trial of fact. In criminal proceedings, in particular, immediate rulings on admissibility of evidence and other matters of procedure have constantly to be made by the single judge when sitting with a jury. It would gravely inconvenience the progress of the trial and diminish the value of oral examination and cross examination as a means of eliciting the truth, if a plurality of judges had to consult together, albeit briefly, before each ruling was made.

These observations do not raise merely practical objections. They point to the fact that a court of three judges would mean a system quite foreign to the sort of court that we are used to in the trial of offences: a whole new procedure would have to be set up for such a court. Under our existing system a judge determines questions of law while the jury—with some guidance from the judge—determines questions of fact.

With three judges it would be necessary to provide for the way in which they were to reach their verdicts—for example, whether their decisions wen; to be unanimous or by majority vote and whether all or one of them would be responsible for decisions on questions of

law. With a single judge the existing judicial system would remain the same except that the judge, rather than the jury, would determine questions of fact.

I do not in any way, however, wish to appear to be dismissing the criticisms of those who genuinely believe that a single judge should not determine questions of fact in trials of scheduled offences. I think those criticisms are basically on two issues. The first is that it would place too great a burden on the single judge to the extent that it might be unfair on the accused. I fully realise that no disrespect is intended by those who feel like this, to the impartiality of the judiciary in Northern Ireland. The point that is of concern is simply whether a single judge will reach the correct decision on matters of fact in these serious trials.

The second major criticism that has been made is that three judges would be less exposed to intimidation and the threat of intimidation than would be one judge.

Mr. English: The right hon. Gentleman said that it would be necessary to lay down the procedure whereby the judges arrived at their decisions. Can he, therefore, tell us why, in the last of the Irish Coercion Acts, which replaced juries with a commission of judges, no such provision was made? They simply worked on the normal assumption that they were to decide by a majority, and they carried on on that basis. It was not done the last time that juries were abolished in Ireland. so why does it suddenly need to be done now?

Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I would be unlikely to answer that question. The Attorney-General may be able to do so when he replies.
The Government have given the most careful consideration to these criticisms. First, on the fairness to the accused of trial by a single judge, it must be said that it is at least open to question whether a single experienced judge is less likely to reach a correct decision than a panel of three judges. I would concede at once that many people might feel that their trial had been fairer if it had been before a panel of three judges, but even here there is a problem. Some proposals for a three-judge court, for example, have


suggested that a verdict should be reached by a majority. I can quite see that some people would find a verdict of two to one more disturbing than the verdict of a single judge. None the less, it would be unreasonable to argue that any man is infallible, and one must provide as far as one can for an error in judgment.
The Government have tried to guard against such an eventuality without creating a system which would be radically different from the one to which people—including the legal profession—are accustomed, and have concluded that the best way to remove any feeling that trial by a single judge was less than fair would be to provide for unrestricted rights of appeal against the decisions of a single judge. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will explain in more detail precisely what is proposed by the amendment to give effect to this.
In general, however, the amendments which have been tabled by the Government will give to a person convicted of a scheduled offence before a single judge an absolute right of appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal of Northern Ireland on any point of fact, law or mixed law and fact, and against sentence. The intermediate stages which normally have to be gone through—for example, by obtaining a certificate from the court of trial, or leave of the Court of Criminal Appeal—would be removed. In order to provide further safeguards for a person convicted before a single judge, the amendments would also require the judge to deliver a reasoned judgment so that the person convicted would have adequate and appropriate material upon which to base any appeal.
I believe these changes go a considerable way to meet the objections of those who have been uneasy about trial by a single judge and that they will remove apprehension that people being tried in this way are having anything other than a fair trial.
6.30 p.m.
As to the second criticism—the intimidation of judges—the Government have come to the view that there is no advantage to be gained by providing for more than one judge. The judiciary of Northern Ireland has been exposed to

this problem for a long period of time, and there is no evidence to suggest that its decisions have been influenced in any way by such threats. Lord Diplock and the fellow members of his commission would hardly have recommended the trial of scheduled offences before a single judge had they received any suggestion that the judges were being influenced by intimidation.
I have not sought to deal with the very real practical difficulties that would arise were an attempt made to set up a court of three judges for the trial of scheduled offences. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will, however, touch on this later. All I will say at this stage is that those difficulties would be grave in the extreme. The administration of justice in Northern Ireland is already pushed to the limits in dealing with crime and other matters arising out of the situation there. This includes the whole administration of justice, the judges, the legal profession and the courts. No Government can disregard the effect of putting that system under still greater strain at a time when the need to deal with crime quickly and fairly is more crucial than ever before.
It is my honest belief that the effect of these amendments would not in any way prejudice the fairness of a trial. I accept that there is a risk, however slight, in one judge determining questions of fact, as there is, of course, in his determining questions of law or sentences, as at present. But I would suggest that the relaxation which the amendments provide in the right of appeal should enable any error, should it occur, to be rectified.
In conclusion, I must stress again to the House that Lord Diplock and his distinguished colleagues, Professor Cross, Mr. George Woodcock and Sir Kenneth Younger, were convinced of the need for one-judge trials for scheduled offences in the exceptional circumstances of Northern Ireland today. Their view is also strongly reinforced by the Lord Chief Justice in Northern Ireland, who is not only a most distinguished judge but also has long experience of the conditions in Northern Ireland at first hand.
I realise the seriousness of a Government seeking to reverse a decision which was taken by the Committee but I hope


I have shown the House, first of all, my own personal concern for taking this step, and, secondly, what I believe to be the clear concession we are making as far as the relaxation of appeals is concerned, which I believe goes a long way to meet many of the doubts previously expressed.

Sir Elwyn Jones: I venture to think that not only my hon. Friends but, it may well be, a number of hon. Gentlemen on the Government side will feel disappointed at the Secretary of State's decision, on behalf of the Government, to reverse the Committee's decision and to restore trial of the scheduled offences by a single judge. That decision of the Committee was reached after an excellent debate in which the weight of argument persuaded the majority of 13 members of the Committee against 11 to reject the single-judge proposal. There were powerful speeches emanating not only from the Opposition side of the Committee but from the Government side in support of the proposal that there should be three judges charged with the burden of responsibility for dealing with crimes which, after all, are the most serious crimes in the criminal calendar and those carrying the most severe sentences.
It is a matter of primary importance that the public in Northern Ireland should have confidence in the system of trial of criminal cases there and, indeed, all those connected with proceedings in the courts. We are of the opinion that the substitution of three judges for the single-judge proposal that is now made by the Government would go to strengthen confidence in the administration of justice in Northern Ireland. I believe, with respect to what has been said earlier in the debates in this Report stage, that it is important to emphasise that confidence and faith in the courts of Northern Ireland have survived even the near civil war through which we are passing.
That has been an important and crucial source of strength and cohesion in that divided community and, therefore, we must not meddle in or interfere with it in a way that would reduce that confidence. Those who supported what was decided upon in the Committee did so for the reason that it would be likely to create a tribunal more likely to inspire confidence in this critical field of the

criminal law than would a judge sitting alone. The matters that were canvassed in support of that proposition were the following. First, a point was made most effectively by the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke), initially I believe on Second Reading, when he said that in a small, divided community not only are the religious allegiances of jury men well known but, unfortunately, the religious allegiances of judges are also known. He pointed out, and I respectfully agree with him, that with three judges the chances of one being of a different faith from the other two are high; and that in itself, in the unhappy state of mind of Northern Ireland, would be a source of strength for the tribunal.
The second argument in favour of having three judges is that this would tend to reduce the risk of judicial error. It is only right that the House should remember that the changes in the rules of evidence which are contained in the Bill certainly increase the risk of a wrong conviction, for the very reason that they reduce the opportunities available to a defendant to challenge the admissibility of quite a wide range of evidence; so that the risk of judicial error is inherently increased by the processes which the Bill will permit in these trials.
Accordingly, it is our view that three minds are less likely to fall into error than would be one judge sitting alone. When I say that, I do not in any way wish to suggest any lack of confidence on my own part or on the part of my hon. Friends in the competence, ability, impartiality and integrity of the judges. But this is a field in which the human mind and human judgment are fallible; and where the matters at issue are of such grave importance to the individual's liberty, we feel that the responsibility should rest upon three men rather than one.
The other factor which was referred to was the anxiety that many hon. Members felt about the exposure to danger and the vulnerability of the single judge having to decide these cases day in, day out.
It is perfectly true that those exercising judicial functions in places of danger are always somewhat exposed. But—without wishing to create any sense of alarm—never will judges have been exposed to


the extent that they will be if what the Government propose in the Bill comes into force.
I ventured to put it in this way in Committee:
There is the danger of the single judge, faced day in, day out, with the confrontation which will be involved in this kind of case, being isolated and identified, so making him far more an object of terrorist attack, and possibly more vulnerable than if he were making these grave decisions with other colleagues sitting alongside him."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 15th May 1973; c. 117.]
I can only admire the courage of the judges who have said that they do not want what we deem to be the additional protection which sitting in a trinity of three rather than alone would create.
The Attorney-General, in the impressive speech that he made on the jury system, called in aid, very rightly, the views of the men on the spot in regard to the jury question. I was impressed by the communication which I received from the Bar of Northern Ireland, to which I drew the attention of the Committee when we were discussing this matter. It was a resolution which was passed by 35 of 74 practising members of the Bar, done, as I understand it, on short notice. The Bar of Northern Ireland passed a resolution which, in effect, expressed the same views as those I have just adumbrated to the House.
The Bar of Northern Ireland put it this way:
First,
The change from a jury trial to a single judge is too drastic and could undermine public confidence in the Court.
Secondly,
The three-judge court would spread the responsibility for decisions and accordingly reduce the risk of personal danger to individual judges.
So the members of the Bar of Northern Ireland certainly think that that is a factor that those of us who are concerned with the protection of our countrymen who submit themselves to these risks, should bear in mind. Thirdly
The existence and efficient working of a three-judge Court in the Republic would reduce criticism of the change from jury trial here.
As to the manpower question, about which I shall say something shortly, the

Northern Ireland Bar expressed the view that
Manpower difficulties should not be allowed to determine such an important issue.
Those are the factors which led the majority of the Committee to the view that the interests of justice required a three-man tribunal of the kind which is now provided for in the Bill.
Two main arguments, as I understand it, were developed by the Government in Committee. These were referred to by the Secretary of State today. The first is that it would take more time. There was the strange reference to so-called "collegiate trials". When one bears in mind that most of the criminal trials in our own country are conducted on a so-called collegiate basis, that is a criticism which I find difficult to follow. Most magistrates' courts are involved in a collective decision, and sitting alongside judges in the Crown courts, dealing with crimes, we find that the so-called collegiate process is certainly not time-consuming.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Whitelaw: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has referred to "the strange reference" to a collegiate trial. That reference was made by Lord Diplock and his commissioners and not by the Government.

Sir Elwyn Jones: I fully appreciate that. In Committee we had a lot of pleasure in regarding it as a somewhat curious ground for rejection of what is proposed, because in practice in a tribunal of three lawyers the presiding judge would determine the matters as they go along and control the proceedings. Those of us who have experience of the appellate courts and the Divisional Court, as many hon. Members have, see that the process of consultation which is involved is minimal from the point of view of expenditure of time.
In any event, time will be saved in the criminal trials by the elimination of the jury. So this is very much a featherweight argument. It is an inadequate reason balanced against the other factors that I have borne in mind.
On the manpower question I shall not traverse the ground again, but this should not be an insurmountable problem. If the members of the Bar, and, if necessary,


the solicitors' profession in Northern Ireland, are called upon to assist in this work. I have little doubt that there is enough ability in the legal profession in Northern Ireland to man these courts on the lines that I have suggested.
I conclude with one political argument, also in support of the three-judge tribunal. It was made very effectively by the lion. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. David James) in Committee when he said that he was particularly impressed by the fact that the Republic of Ireland, in its special powers procedure, had three judges. He said that it would be a very unhappy day if anyone was able to say that Parliament in Westminster was less liberal than a neighbouring country in taking care of the liberty of individual subjects.
There it is. It is, at any rate, a factor to be borne in mind.
In our view a three-judge tribunal would inspire greater confidence in Northern Ireland, would reduce the risk of judicial error and, finally, would reduce the risk to the lives of the judges themselves who will face this heavy responsibility.

Mr. W. F. Deedes: As the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) observed, we had a considerable argument in Committee on this topic. I kept my mouth shut throughout those proceedings. I was, frankly, intimidated by the wealth of knowledge which was readily available from both sides of the Committee. There are moments when it seems best not to say anything. On reflection, however, and having read what learned counsel had to say, I am persuaded that there is just a corner for a lay point of view on this particular issue.
There were two main arguments in Committee. The first was whether we could find a sufficient number of judges if we had three judges where there was no jury. I was not much persuaded by that argument. It does not seem to touch a principle. It might be very difficult in the context of Northern Ireland to find a sufficient number of people, and I have no doubt that a good argument could be made, as it was by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, but I do not find that convincing. It is not very important.
The second and bigger argument is whether the single judge may be considered competent to do what is required of him, whether we can trust a single judge to reach the right verdict, or, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just put it, whether we are less likely to fall into error when there are three judges rather than one.
That seems to be a very important issue and one which carries weight outside the Province of Northern Ireland. There is something very important at stake. I say this as a layman, not as someone who practises at the Bar. Lawyers are sometimes very shy at seeing the virtues of their own profession. I see considerable virtue in the respect attached to the decisions of a single judge. I perhaps see more virtue in that respect than do those who practise at the Bar.
The first objection is that of the vulnerability of one judge, a matter on which the right hon. and learned Gentleman touched. I accept that in Northern Ireland one judge is perhaps more vulnerable to the forces at large than three would be. However, when I think about it I am not totally convinced that that is a persuasive argument. So much irrational conduct goes on in Northern Ireland that I am not persuaded that one judge out of three might not be singled out.
The second argument is whether there is not just an element of mistrust in the capacity of a single judge without a jury to do what is required of him. In a sense, my point is a very simple one. I do not want to repeat it too often. I simply offer a lay voice to defend the capacity of the single judge, even in the peculiar circumstances of Northern Ireland.
I take the point made by my right hon. Friend when he moved the amendment that we could give rise to an almost unrestricted right of appeal against the decision of a single judge if we allowed this to go too far. I am concerned about the likelihood of undermining the capacity of a single judge, not merely to reach a verdict without a jury, which is what this is about, but even to sentence when a jury is present at the trial.
There are arguments advanced—I think that hon. and learned Gentlemen will support me—to the effect that sentencing


would be better done by a sentencing court than by a single judge. This is an issue which could have repercussions outside Northern Ireland and perhaps rather greater repercussions than we now think. I am not persuaded that a sentencing court would be an improvement on our present system.
We live in a world in which there is a growing reluctance to accept a decision by an individual sitting in almost any capacity. Where any decision has to be reached, it is broadly concluded that a committee is the safest instrument for finding the right solution. If that fails, we have sub-committees. We are in this sense very collective-minded. The right hon. and learned Member spoke of the collegiate system. There is also something called the collective system—the belief that six men will automatically produce a better answer than one man thinking about the problem. I am not persuaded that this is a very good thing.
The judge remains now almost singularly in our national life a lone eminence. It is difficult to think of any corresponding figure who has such a lone eminence. In some eyes—I think that hon. and learned Members, even those on the Opposition side of the House, will agree—he is almost anomalously so. To many people it is not a convincing place for a single man now to be. I think that that view would be strengthened if the Bill went forward as amended in Committee.
This is a prime example of where the singular difficulties of Northern Ireland to which we are applying our minds could react on us. We would not be immune from the conclusion reached in this matter. I am sufficiently reactionary as a layman to wish to continue to repose my trust in the work of a single judge. That is an indivisible principle. That is why I support my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: We had a long discussion in Committee on this important matter. I hope that all hon. Members have read the report of the proceedings in Committee. We regard the Government's decision to abolish the jury and to substitute therefore one judge as of paramount importance. Many hon. Members on the Government side expressed their doubts. The

hon. and learned Member for South Fylde (Mr. Gardiner) said that he did not like the legislation and that he hoped it would not be a dress rehearsal of events which could take place in this country at some future time.
We heard the other argument advanced by the Attorney-General that in this country one judge was able to adjudicate in important cases and that, if it was good enough for this country, it should be good enough for Northern Ireland. We heard other arguments advanced by Government spokesmen to the effect that the sole reason for this legislation was the emergency situation and political atmosphere existing in Northern Ireland.
The Government cannot have every argument. Either there is an emergency situation in Northern Ireland which merits this type of legislation—legislation which will not have to be applied in this country—or in the existing circumstances the judicial system as it is known in this country should be made applicable to Northern Ireland.
We have heard Lord Devlin's defence of the jury system. As I said in Committee, it is interesting to conjecture what would have appeared in the report on detention of terrorists if Lord Devlin had been chairman and not Lord Diplock. I do not think we should have had a proposal to abolish the jury system. Even if Lord Devlin had been forced into taking a decision, he would not have agreed to the substitution of a judge and 12 men by one judge. Lord Devlin, with his respect for the jury system, would have recognised that such a dramatic step as the abolition of the jury system in any circumstances should be accompanied by other measures to ameliorate its effect.
That is why I had thought that the Government, having listened to the arguments which were advanced in Committee by Opposition Members and some of their own back benchers, would conclude that they had achieved something of a victory in the abolition of the jury system and would be prepared to accept the proposal for three judges instead.
I must point out that one judge will be in a very vulnerable position. He will have no social life if he is put into the position of daily trying this type of case. For him to have any social life, he will have to be accompanied by members of


the security forces. In such circumstances it is a very onerous responsibility to place upon the shoulders of one person.
I was hoping that the Secretary of State would express some reason for thinking that the system in the Republic, which has three judges, had failed. I do not say that I support the system in the Republic. I am voting against all this legislation tonight. I have no time for it. I have made my position clear repeatedly. However, with the across-the-border relations and talks which are now taking place, I have not heard the Government raise any serious objection to the special criminal courts as they are now constituted in the Republic.
7.0 p.m.
In trying to justify his proposal to reverse the decision made in Committee, the Secretary of State has promised to move an amendment at a later stage which will give an unrestricted right of appeal to those found guilty. That may sound reasonable, but Clause 3 places restrictions on the granting of bail and, even though an unrestricted right of appeal might be written into the Bill, it could mean that a person who was found guilty and given that unrestricted right would be refused bail because of the provisions of Clause 3 and might be incarcerated for up to a year. At the end of that period he might be found not guilty, but he would have spent a year in gaol without compensation.
I can see no valid reason why the Government should attempt to reverse the decision taken in Committee. Many Conservative Members were happy to accept three judges. They expressed their concern and opposition at the abolition of trial by jury. The proposal put forward in Committee was a compromise between the abolition of the jury and the substitution of one judge in its place. Eminent Conservative Members of the legal profession who were members of the Committee were prepared to accept this compromise, but the Government, for reasons which I fail to understand and which will not be understood in Northern Ireland, are determined to steamroller the amendment through in order to reverse the Committee's decision. I cannot understand the Government's attitude on this and I cannot accept their justification for

it. It will not be accepted in Northern Ireland, and I intend to vote against the amendment.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: When I attempted to come to the rescue of the Government in Committee, my help was not altogether welcomed. I said that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General had not persuaded me on the principle of the matter, but he said that he had gone to endless trouble and labour in an attempt to see whether sufficient judge-power could be produced to match the requirement of the Committee that no less than three judges should serve at these important trials. He was most persuasive on the question of numbers. One could see from the poll conducted by the members of the Northern Irish Bar that the catchment area is small. Only 35 members voted. We all know that in any Bar in any country there are probably—

Mr. Fitt: A lot of drunks.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: There may be a lot of drunks, but that was not my point. My point is that there are a lot of people, probably 50 per cent. of the members, who are called to the Bar and are nominally members of it but who have not practised for years. There are many like that in the Bar of England, the Bar of Scotland and, no doubt, also in the Bar of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Stallard: And in Annie's Bar.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: If the total number of the Northern Irish Bar is 70, it is clear that the number of practising barristers must be considerably less and the number of 35, or perhaps up to 40, strikes me as being probably the effective Bar of Northern Ireland.
Consider the effect on the administration of justice if the three judges had to deal with all scheduled offences. No doubt they could be found for the work, but the effect on the trial of nonscheduled offences, still by far the greatest part of the criminal work in any province, in spite of the troubles in Northern Ireland, would be most serious and the effect on the trial of civil actions, which always take the lowest priority in these matters, would surely be disastrous. I imagine that, with the amount of damage and personal injury which is at


present rife in Northern Ireland, the number of cases dealing with claims for damages, for personal injuries and for damage to property about and beyond the normal civil actions in a community must be enormous.
Therefore, as a matter not of principle—because I am not persuaded on the principle—but of practice, the administration of justice might break down if the Bar and the bench were denuded in order to provide three judges for the trial of scheduled offences. I imagine that the trial of these offences will be considerably increased once the Bill is passed.
In these circumstances, there is nothing that can be done except to plumb the depths—that is a rude word—or to scrape the barrel—that is ruder still—of the solicitors' profession. Even there the same arguments apply because of the tremendous strain on solicitors' offices, and, therefore, the only reserve is the Bar of England. We have never heard why that is not a possible catchment area. I am not in the market for the work, nor, should I think, are any right hon. or hon. and learned Members of this House. It would be a most disagreeable task, a most responsible and most honourable one. It may be that there are reasons, either psychological or technical, why the English Bar could not be used, and I hope that my right hon. and Learned Friend the Attorney-General will explain.
The reason for my vote in Committee and the reason I expect, though not firmly, what my vote will be tonight is that I do not want to see a strain put on the machinery and structure of the legal system in Northern Ireland so soon and so drastically as the numbers suggest will happen.
It is all very well to say that three judges sit in the special courts in the Republic. The reservoir of legal manpower in the Republic is far greater than it is in Northern Ireland. I do not know how many members there are in the Bar of Dublin, or of the Republic, but I imagine that the total runs into hundreds. There is a far greater reservoir of manpower there than there is in the 35 or 40 members of the Northern Ireland Bar

who are, for all practical purposes, the only possible reservoir in Belfast.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: The hon. and learned Gentleman has made the point a number of times about 35 out of 40 effective members of the Bar being a high proportion, if the figure of 40 is correct, who thought that this could be done. But is there any reason for thinking that, however many practising members of the Bar there may be in Northern Ireland, their number does not as reasonably equate with the work in Northern Ireland as the number here equates reasonably with the work here? If there is no reason for thinking that, why should one assume necessarily that this process will impose an undue strain?

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: The reason is that with small numbers every individual counts far more than when there are hundreds or, as we have here, thousands. If there are 35 or 40 members the abstraction of 10, or whatever number may be necessary, is a serious diminution, particularly as their work is now increasing and will increase rapidly each day after the Bill is passed.
The number of cases which will he dealt with as a result of the Bill will be much greater and the trials will be infinitely shorter. Jury trials take much longer than trials in which there are only judges, whether there is one judge or three judges. Therefore, the activity rate of the Bar, in Northern Ireland will be stepped up enormously. If at the same time its numbers are substantially reduced, there will be grave danger of a breakdown.
I have thrown out a life line to the Government, but they seem disinclined to take it. I hope to get from my right hon. and learned Friend some confirmation of what I am saying. If he continues to say how much better trial by law and fact is by a single judge rather than by a judge and jury, and that one judge is ideal and three judges are wrong, my vote is in jeopardy.

The Attorney-General: I seize the lifeline which has been flung out so gracefully by my hon. and learned Friend and I tug on the other end, hoping that I may tug sufficiently to pull him into the correct Lobby when it comes to the Division. I am sorry that he in any way thought his


support was being rejected. I fully support what he has said. He was only attracted by the matter of practicalities and the practical administration of justice, which I place immensely high because it has to be carried out by the judges who must do the duty which the House imposes on them. As my hon. and learned Friend has pointed out, the Bar in Northern Ireland is a small one. Two-thirds of the Bar have been called since 1969, and so they have not had much practical experience—there is only one silk who took silk before 1964. If they were sitting with a High Court judge on matters of this kind they would not have a great deal of experience to contribute.
7.15 p.m.
These members of the Bar are much overstretched in that they are being used a great deal in prosecuting and defending. Twenty-three members appear for the prosecution out of the 25, made up of 17 Queen's Counsel and eight junior counsel. It would be wholly wrong, particularly with the provisions of the Bill, to deprive accused persons of the services of the best members of the Northern Irish Bar. They must be available and free to defend. Therefore, we cannot invite them to sit on the bench.
Similarly, solicitors with practical experience of criminal matters have their important duties to perform. In the present climate in Northern Ireland, it would be impossible for them to be sitting on the bench part of the time and then interviewing clients and representing them in criminal matters.
Therefore, on the matter of administration and practicality, my hon. and learned Friend is wholly right. The need is for civil cases still to be tried. Important matters with regard to personal injury are to be decided. There are about 20,000 county court cases pending and about 1,285 High Court cases under civil jurisdiction. It is important that they should be dealt with.
I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will forgive me if, having corralled him, I turn to some of the other matters which have been raised. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out, what

we are considering is a trial by one judge alone, but one in which there are considerable additional rights of appeal. Under Amendment No. 3 there is to be provided appeal on any ground where a person has been convicted on trial by a judge alone, without leave of the court, and without leave of the Court of Appeal, a right to appeal on matters of law, of fact and of mixed law and fact. Therefore, effectively, four judges will consider the issue of the guilt of the accused.

The Lord Chief Justice proposes establish by direction that there will be a system of practice directions. A judgment will be given which will analyse the counts, set out the special directions, analyse the Crown's case and the defence case, set out broad findings of fact and the conclusions drawn from those findings, and then the verdict. That gives a convicted person on appeal a position of far greater advantage than he has if he is appealing from the verdict of a jury, because the verdict of a jury merely expresses guilt. It is never possible to discover the reasons for it and the facts the jury found which made it come to its conclusion. The three judges of the Court of Appeal will be able to examine the evidence on which the single judge has come to his conclusion, and be able to reverse it if they think he has made an error. My right hon. Friend places the greatest importance upon the appeal.

I commend the pithy but very wise speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), who paid our profession some compliments which we are unused to hearing in the House from laymen, by speaking of the confidence which is placed in the judge. I commend his arguments to the House. I know that we are placing the judges in Northern Ireland in a very vulnerable position. They are very conscious of that, but they are men determined to do their duty, and they have done their duty. They are confident that if the House gives them this task they will carry it out with courage and integrity.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 86, Noes 54.

Division No. 189.]
AYES
[7.20 p.m.


Atkins, Humphrey
Boscawen, Hn, Robert
Churchill, W.S.


Awdry, Daniel
Bowden, Andrew
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Benyon, W.
Bryan, Sir Paul
Clegg, Walter


Biggs-Davidson, John
Chapman, Sydney
Cooke, Robert




Cormack, Patrick
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Critchley, Julian
Kinsey, J. R.
Redmond, Robert


Crouch, David
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Knox, David
Russell, Sir Ronald


Dixon, Piers
Luce, R. N.
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
McMaster, Stanley
Shersby, Michael


Emery, Peter
Maginnis, John E.
Sinclair, Sir George


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Mather, Carol
Soref, Harold


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fortescue, Tim
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Sutcliffe, John


Fowler, Norman
Miscampbell, Norman
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Fox, Marcus
Moate, Roger
Tebbit, Norman


Green, Alan
Molyneaux, James
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Gurden, Harold
Money, Ernie
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Hastings, Stephen
Murton, Oscar
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Havers, Sir Michael
Neave, Airey
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Hawkins, Paul
Bolt, John
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Hayhoe, Barney
Onslow, Cranle
Ward, Dame Irene


Holland, Philip
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Weatherill, Bernard


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Page, John (Harrow. W.)
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Hunt, John
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.



Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Raison, Timothy
Mr. John Stradling Thomas and


Kilfedder, James
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Mr. Michael Jopling.


NOES


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Pendry, Tom


Bishop, E. S.
Hayhoe, Barney
Prescott, John


Booth, Albert
Heffer, Eric S.
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Cronin, John
Janner, Greville
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Davidson, Arthur
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Kaufman, Gerald
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Kerr, Russell
Silverman, Julius


Dunn, James A.
Lane, David
Skinner, Dennis


Dunnett, Jack
Lawson, George
Stallard, A. W.


English, Michael
Leonard, Dick
Swain, Thomas


Faulds, Andrew
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Tope, Graham


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McAliskey, Mrs. Bernadette
Wainwright, Edwin


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Wallace, George


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Marquand, David
Whitlock, William


Foot, Michael
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Millan, Bruce



Freeson, Reginald
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gilbert, Dr. John
Orme, Stanley
Mr. Thomas Cox and


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Mr. J. D. Concannon.


Harper, Joseph
Parker, John (Dagenham)

Question accordingly agreed to.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 36, leave out subsection (3) and insert:
'(3) Where an indictment contains a count alleging a scheduled offence and another count alleging an offence which at the time the indictment is presented is not a scheduled offence, the other count shall be disregarded.
(4) Without prejudice to subsection (2) above, where the court trying a scheduled offence on indictment are not satisfied that the accused is guilty of that offence, but are satisfied that he is guilty of some other offence which is not a scheduled offence, but of which a jury could have found him guilty on trial for the scheduled offence, the court may convict him of that other offence.
(5) Where the court trying a scheduled offence convict the accused of that or some other offence then, without prejudice to their power apart from this subsection to give a judgment, they shall, at the time of conviction or as soon as practicable thereafter, give a judgment stating the reasons for the conviction.
(6) A person convicted of any offence on a trial under this section without a jury may, not-

withstanding anything in Section 8 of the Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act 1968, appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal under that section—
(a) against his conviction, on any ground without the leave of the Court of Criminal Appeal or a certificate of the judge of the court of trial; and
(b) against sentence passed on conviction without such leave, unless the sentence is one fixed by law.
(7) Where a person is so convicted, the time for giving notice of appeal under section 20(1) of the said Act of 1968 shall run from the date of judgment, if later than the date from which it would run under that subsection.'

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): With this Amendment it will be convenient to take the following:

Amendment No. 4, in Clause 4, page 3, line 18, leave out from 'offence' to 'shall' in line 19.

No. 5, in page 3, line 23, leave out from 'offence' to 'shall' in line 24.

No. 6, page 3, line 32, leave out from 'offence' to first 'or' in line 33.

No. 8, in Clause 5, page 4, line 1, leave out from 'offence' to 'a' in line 2.

No. 10, in Clause 6, page 4, leave out line 15.

No. 22, in Clause 30, page 18, line 12, leave out from 'offence' to end of line 13.

The Solicitor-General: The grouped amendments are consequential upon Amendment No. 3. That amendment deals with three separate matters—namely, the prevention of counts of scheduled and non-scheduled offences being included in the same indictment, the kind of judgment which must be given by a court which convicts somebody under Clause 2—that is on indictment without a jury—and the right of appeal of anybody so convicted.
In Committee there was some discussion about the joining in the same indictment and in the same trial of scheduled and non-scheduled offences. I undertook to reconsider the matter. I made it clear that I had some sympathy with it. The new subsection (3) and subsection (4) makes suitable provision. Subsection (3) provides that if an indictment contains a scheduled and non-scheduled offence the non-scheduled offence should be disregarded. The subsection leaves the power which was discussed and, I think agreed generally in Committee, that the court should on a scheduled offence have the right to convict the accused of a lesser offence even though it might be a non-scheduled offence.
Subsection (5) puts into effect the suggestion which was made in Committee that there should be what I called a reasoned judgment. The draftsmen have preferred that there should be a judgment stating the reasons. The House will see that only upon conviction would such a judgment be given. That is for the obvious reason that upon an acquittal such a judgment could perhaps be damaging to the accused person.
Finally—this is of great importance—provision has been made to short circuit or bypass the ordinary provisions which apply on appeal from conviction and sentence in Northern Ireland where leave has to be given before the Court of Appeal can deal with the appeal. That hurdle has been taken away, and now there is a direct right of appeal, without

any question of obtaining leave or consent of the judge of the court of trial, not only against conviction but against sentence passed on conviction in any case where the conviction arises out of a scheduled offence. It was felt by the Government, and I am sure that the whole House would agree, that in a serious case decided—as the House has now ruled—by a judge sitting alone it would be a valuable safeguard that there should be provision for direct access to the Court of Appeal.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: In welcoming the amendment we welcome the Government's partial conversion. Having spent most of today in exterior darkness they have not emerged into interior light but have at least come into the gloom. We are particularly pleased with the steps which the Government have taken relating to appeals and scheduled and nonscheduled offences, which was an obnoxious part of the Bill as it first appeared before the House and in Committee. We are glad that the Government have seen the light in that way.
There is a little confusion which I draw to the attention of the hon. and learned Gentleman about line 7 of the amendment. The new subsection as a whole says:
Without prejudice to subsection (2) above, where the court trying a scheduled offence on indictment are not satisfied that the accused is guilty of that offence, but are satisfied that he is guilty of some other offence which is not a scheduled offence, but of which a jury could have found him guilty on a trial for the scheduled offence, the court may convict him of that other offence.
We appreciate the reasons for placing that provision within the Bill. In many ways that is the proper thing to do. I draw the hon. and learned Gentleman's attention to line 7, which says:
but of which a jury could have found him guilty on a trial for the scheduled offence …
Does that mean an offence upon which a jury could have found him guilty on trial for the scheduled offence with the new and amended rules of evidence as they appear within the Bill, or it is where a jury could have found him guilty of the lesser offence and when the rules of evidence as they exist outside the Bill


would have applied if he had been tried for the lesser offence?
It is generally accepted that we are lessening in this context the rules of evidence. Perhaps "lessening" is not the correct word. In fact, we are removing many of the stringencies of the rules of evidence regarding scheduled offences. On a non-scheduled offence, does the judge convict using the rules of evidence as they are at the moment or as they will be after the passing of the Act'? That is an important point, and those who read our proceedings will want to have some indication of the hon. and learned Gentleman's attitude to the matter as that may prevent future litigation.

The Solicitor-General: The answer I can give the hon. Gentleman, not from any room of interior gloom but perhaps with some brightness shining about us at the moment, is that the procedure would be that of a Part I procedure throughout.
The reason has to be because otherwise the learned judge would be creating a sort of Jekyll and Hyde character for himself. He would be looking at the evidence with one eye to see whether it was the ordinary Part I procedure. and, having decided that perhaps the principal element of evidence was lacking and. therefore, it was no longer a scheduled offence aggravated burglary or something of the sort, he would then say "I do not feel that the essential element is there but in the absence of that element there is the lesser offence"—what we called in Committee the "blood brother"—"and, therefore, I convict of that."
I would have thought that the whole of that trial—the Part I trial—would be conducted as a Part I trial throughout. The alternative power given to the court under the new subsection is the question, based on the Part I trial procedure, whether a major offence has been made out, and, if not, whether the lesser offence comes in, about which the learned judge has heard and about which he is satisfied.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: The Solicitor-General has given his view of what the amendment means. I am bound to say that my hon. Friends and I take the view that if it means what he says it means

it is most unsatisfactory. The Bill sets up a special procedure, to which I have referred many times as "diluted justice", in respect of scheduled offences, and scheduled offences only. It does not set up any such procedure in respect of any other offence than a scheduled offence. But if the hon. and learned Gentleman's interpretation of the amendment is right, the effect would be to extend vastly the area of diluted justice by applying it to any charge of which the defendant could have been guilty upon indictment for the scheduled offence.
The hon. and learned Gentleman must see that that would be widening immensely the area in which the provisions of Part I of the Bill would apply. It would be applying them wholly illogically to offences which would not be scheduled offences if directly charged. Thus, we would have the situation that if two people were involved in the same incident and it were thought that A could be charged with a scheduled offence on the evidence but that B could not, B would be tried without the Part I procedure being applied to him and his guilt or innocence, therefore, would depend upon the normal rules of the criminal courts. On the other hand, A. having been tried under the Part I procedure and acquitted of the scheduled offence, could be found guilty under Part I of the lesser offence.
Such a situation would create a gross anomaly between the two people concerned and a grave injustice. If, therefore, the amendment means what the Solicitor-General thinks it means—no doubt he will think further about it—I suggest that the wording should be amended in another place so as to avoid the anomaly and the injustice.

The Solicitor-General: I feel it right that the House should analyse for a moment the effect of what the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) has said. Let us look at Clauses 5, 6 and 7, taking them separately. One has a trial on a scheduled offence in which, for example, a statement has been admitted in the absence of the witness, under the provisions of Clause 5. That statement is part of the case. It may not be the only evidence.
At the end of the case, the judge says that he is not satisfied upon one element of the offence charged, and, therefore, he takes it out of the category of scheduled


offence. But there is the lesser offence on which the court can convict. Is the learned judge, then, to work back and say "There was a statement by a witness, who did not attend, which was admissible under Clause 5. I have to consider whether that statement was material in the absence of the witness, but I am prepared to accept it as far as the other offence is concerned"?
The judge, in that situation, has to go on to say that there was an admission by the accused, however; but defending counsel did not object to that admission because it was not obtained in contravention of Clause 6. The judge then has to say "I am not satisfied that a scheduled offence has been committed, but on the basis of the evidence before me I am satisfied that a lesser offence has been committed, and I invite defence counsel to say whether he has grounds for excluding the admission, which he did not object to under Clause 6, because there may be different grounds on which he would be entitled to object to that admission if it is not a scheduled offence trial."
If that situation is not absurd enough, on Clause 7, relating to the onus of proof, is the learned judge to say "I have to consider whether the evidence given to me, not only under Clauses 5 and 6 but under Clause 7, is evidence that I must review again now that it is a non-scheduled offence that I am considering."? In our view it would make nonsense of the process and create an intolerable burden which is totally unrealistic.

Mr. McNamara: By leave of what is left of the House, I must tell the Solicitor-General that what he has said with regard to the admissibility of a statement, the onus of proof, and the rest, really is not sufficient answer. This matter is something to which both he and the Attorney-General must set their minds when the Bill reaches another place.
Throughout the Committee stage we were told "We must not bother about the jury because all the judges have trained legal minds; we must not insist upon three judges because, after all, every judge has a trained legal mind." Whenever we have come to a point where there is a lessening of the defences available to the accused, we have been told "The judge has a trained legal

mind." Now the hon. and learned Gentleman says that the judge would not be able to reconsider his decision. Yet surely a judge has a trained legal mind.
Welcome as many of the amendments are, and although we will not divide the House on this amendment because of what is contained in it for the general lessening of the evil in the Bill, nevertheless this aspect must be looked at very carefully in another place. One paramount factor arises. In the difficult situation in Northern Ireland it would be so easy for people, from whichever camp, to say that all that was done by the Attorney-General was to accuse them of a greater offence, knowing that it would not be established but certain that, under the rules which have been relaxed with regard to the presentation of evidence, it would nevertheless ensure a conviction. That cannot be satisfactory to anyone.

7 45 p.m.

Mr. Peter Archer: Is there any insuperable difficulty, if the judge finds the scheduled offence not proved, in indicting the accused in the normal way by the normal procedure?

Mr. McNamara: I would not have thought so. This is something at which the Government ought to look in another place. We are not really satisfied on this point, particularly on the basis of the argument employed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin). The Government should look at this if only to prevent future extensive and expensive litigation in the Northern Ireland courts.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4

COURT FOR TRIAL OF SCHEDULED OFFENCES

Amendments made:

No. 4, in page 3, line 18, leave out from 'offence' to 'shall' in line 19.

No. 5, in page 3, line 23, leave out from 'offence' to 'shall' in line 24.

No. 6, in page 3, line 32, leave out from 'offence' to first 'or' in line 33.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause 5

ADMISSIBILITY OF WRITTEN STATEMENTS IN PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO SCHEDULED OFFENCES.

Mr. Peter Archer: I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 4, line I. leave out Clause 5.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we can also discuss Amendment No. 9, in page 4. line 4, leave out from first of ' to that in line 6 and insert:
another person shall be admissible as evidence tending to establish any fact stated therein of which direct oral evidence by the maker of the statement would be admissible, if that other person gives evidence of the making of the statement and of the facts stated therein, in so far as he has any knowledge bearing upon those facts. and if the court is satisfied by evidence:

(i) of the authenticity of the statement and
(ii) that its admission as evidence would not create substantial injustice to any defendant; and
(iii)'.

Mr. Archer: In the last debate my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) welcomed the partial conversion of the Government, at least before he exposed the viper in the bouquet. On this subject there is no joy in heaven at all. Clause 5 simply adds a further weapon to the authorities armoury or, as we would prefer to put it, it removes a further defence for the innocent. It proposes to admit evidence contained in statements in certain cases without calling the person who made the statement, without the court having the advantage of seeing the deponent, without the formalities of an oath and, perhaps most important, without the safeguard of cross-examination.
It lends itself, as the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Capt. Orr) reminded us in Committee on 11th June, to the danger of people paying off old scores, what the hon. and gallant Member called the "framing" operation. In Committee the hon. and gallant Member and the Opposition attempted to suggest methods of mitigating the apparent casualness of what is a serious inroad into the rules of evidence. The hon. and gallant Gentleman suggested that at least

the statement should not be admissible unless it was made in the presence of two constables. The Opposition suggested that it ought to be made in the presence of a magistrate.
To ask whether we might have been content to accept Clause 5 had the Government made any concession on the point is a hypothetical question with which I will not detain the House. We regard this proposal as dangerous and potentially responsible for many wrongful convictions. The Solicitor-General argued that it did not matter, that even if we admitted the statements the court might not give great weight to them. His argument was "All right, let us admit them but let us not pay too much attention to them". That is a solution which does not commend itself to the Opposition.
Juries sometimes have to be directed "You have heard something which you ought not to have heard. Put it out of your minds. The law would have excluded it because it is more likely to be prejudicial than helpful, so forget it." We all know how difficult it is for any jury to exclude it. Judges are not somehow psychologically above the same kind of pressures which exist for the ordinary man. Judges too, if they have heard something which it would have been better not to have heard because it is prejudicial, might on occasions find great difficulty in making up their minds what conclusion they would have reached if they had not heard it.
It is easy for us to be impressed by something which cold reason tells us would have been better unheard in the first place. The argument of the Solicitor-General is really an argument for having no rules of evidence at all. What he is in effect saying is that we can safely leave all of these matters to the common sense of the court. It may well be that there will not be many situations in which these powers will arise. The right hon. and learned Gentleman argues in any case that in the majority of cases where they do arise the court will not attach great weight to them. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) pointed out in Committee that probably the majority of statements of this kind are taken in the police station in situations where at least the proper formalities can be observed.
If the Government were minded to introduce another clause providing for the admission of statements with rather different formalities we might take a different view. However, we regard this as a matter not to be taken lightly. It is easy, once one has swallowed the original erosion of the jury system, for the whole thing to escalate. These other erosions can be treated all too lightly.
Turning now to Amendment No. 9, the Opposition are here seeking to point out that the Government cannot have it both ways. If this suspect evidence is admitted, it must be admitted for the benefit of the prosecution or of the defence. There is an old proverb "What is sauce for the goose …." In the Bill the Government speak of a statement being taken in the presence of a constable. That rather gives away their thinking. Clearly, they have it in mind that it will be of advantage to the prosecution and that it never could arise for the benefit of the defence.
We ask the House to accept Amendment No. 7, eliminating this kind of evidence altogether. But, if not, we say that it is quite wrong that it should be used only to obtain more convictions. The very fact that the Government have drafted the clause in this way, with the requirement that it should be in the present of a constable, gives away the real purpose of the Bill, which is, clearly, to obtain more convictions. We say that in a proper case if this kind of evidence is to be admitted it should make it possible to secure an acquittal.

The Solicitor-General: The reasoning behind the clause was clearly set out in the Diplock Report, in Chapter 8. To summarise that, the hard reality of life is that witnesses in Northern Ireland are likely to be got at once it is known they are likely to make a statement to the police or have made one, with the object of ensuring that they do not give evidence in court. Under the law as it stands, if a witness fails to give evidence in court that is the end of the matter and the formal statement is not admissible.
There have been cases in Northern Ireland of witnesses having made statements and subsequently refusing to testify in court. Intimidation has ranged from the moderate to the serious—from stones thrown through windows to wounding

and even, in one case, to murder. It does not seem unreasonable in such cases that, where a witness disappears, goes abroad or is unfit to attend, his formal statement to the police should be admissible. It is worth remembering and emphasising that the absence of that witness and the fact that his statement goes in and he is not there to be cross-examined is something which clearly goes to the evidential value of that statement when the court has to consider it.
On Amendment No. 9, in spite of what the hon. and learned Gentleman said, it is not clear to me why this new restriction should be placed upon statements made in this way. Statements made to the police are made by persons who know, or should know, at the time of making them that they are likely to be called upon to swear them on oath. The actual making of the statement in those circumstances is a serious matter. A statement made to the police is more likely to be taken as a serious matter than is a statement made to another person.
With the greatest respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, the provisos in the amendment do not amount to much. Under Clause 5 as it stands it is already necessary for the police to give evidence of the taking of the statement and any relevant facts that may explain the absence of the maker of the statement. The authenticity of the statement will in any event be considered by the court. That is a matter which has to be considered in every case whether a witness gives evidence or makes a statement.
A great deal of time was taken in Committee in considering the position of a mentally unfit person. The date upon which a witness suffered mental unfitness would be of great importance to the court in deciding how much weight to attach to the statement. Evidence is evidence. It is neither just nor unjust. The justice comes when the court decides on the evidence whether to accept it and how much of it to accept, and what will follow from its acceptance of it in part or in whole.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: We are not satisfied with that reply. Like my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer), I take the view, which I think is generally held,


that one should accept the dilution of the normal rules of evidence only in the last resort. I have no doubt that even those who will have to give effect to Clause 5—the judges in Northern Ireland—will not welcome this provision.
In the first part of his reply the Solicitor-General put forward a case for the clause, a case which was referred to by the Diplock Committee and one which we have always thought was the only basis upon which a clause of this type could validly be inserted into the criminal law—that is, the case where a witness who could give valuable testimony positively refused to do so because he was frightened. That is the one case that is not provided for by the clause, unless that witness is so frightened that he leaves the country or hides himself away where he cannot be found. If he simply remains, doing his job, living in his house and positively refusing to give evidence, I suppose he can be forced to do so against his will, with all the dangers that would involve, but it is difficult to believe that that course would often be taken. The one basis upon which the clause could be justified is not provided for.
8.0 p.m.
I hope that between now and the next stage of the Bill in another place the Solicitor-General will give serious consideration to the argument put forward by my hon. and learned Friend on the word "constable". The Solicitor-General did not deal with that argument and, with great respect to him, I wonder whether he entirely followed it.
The argument is that if, for example, the solicitor for the defendant sees someone who, he has been told, will give evidence which might be helpful to his client in relation to the offence charged, it is just as likely that a person whose statement has been made to the defendant's solicitor—or perhaps to some other person—will succumb to one of the three qualifications set out as will someone who has given his statement to a constable either on the spot or in a police station. Even looked at from the point of view of the prosecution, a statement may be taken by someone other than a constable. It is difficult to follow why there should be some magic about a statement made in the presence of a

constable which does not apply to a statement made in the presence of some other person provided that, as the amendment puts it—and the amendment is directed to the other person as much as to the constable—the authenticity of the statement is clearly proved. In the case I have put forward the defendant's solicitor would have to go into the witness box and state how and when the statement was taken, and also deal with the other matters.
Even if the Government are not able to go along with us in our dislike of this form of evidence—and I regard this almost as one of the major defects in this part of the Bill—I hope that they will reconsider the argument I have put forward in relation to persons other than constables and introduce later an amendment to deal with it, not necessarily in the precise words of Amendment No. 9.

Mr. McMaster: I am sorry that we are discussing this important amendment in such an empty House. It underlines the fact that Ulster is under-represented in this House. The fact that so few hon. Members representing Ulster constituencies are present means that the burdens upon them in a week like this prevent the case as seen through Northern Irish eyes being properly expounded and debated.
As hon. and learned Members have said, it is with regret that we face a situation in which we have to reduce the ordinary standards of the common law as applied throughout the United Kingdom. It is clear from the Diplock Report that the situation in Northern Ireland is different from that in the rest of the United Kingdom and requires extraordinary measures.
The measures in the Bill are temporary, and I hope that they will not be needed for more than the year for which the Bill is initially enacted. But the situation in Northern Ireland—and I speak as a representative of Northern Ireland from a constituency which is very much affected by these troubles—is such that it is impossible for the ordinary rules of evidence to be applied. It is very much a matter of fact that witnesses are got at. Witnesses are not only intimidated but are personally attacked. Indeed, in one case in my constituency a witness was killed in front of his wife and children.
In such a situation it is important that Clause 5 should form part of the Bill in order that justice may be done in Northern Ireland and that the public in Northern Ireland should be satisfied that all reasonable steps are being taken. This includes the use of extraordinary measures so that trouble should be brought to an end and convictions obtained against those whom everybody knows to be responsible. My use of the phrase "everybody knows" may be questioned, because there is a presumption by lawyers that people are innocent until they are proved guilty. But there have been many cases in Northern Ireland where the accused person has simply said openly "I do not recognise this court." He has turned his back on the judge, thereby admitting that he is a member of the Provisional IRA, because this is the standard tactic of its members. Yet because of the provision of our ordinary law it is impossible to obtain a conviction against that man.
One can imagine the outrage of the general public when such a person, against a background of crime and violence which has completely upset our society in Northern Ireland and led to untold misery and suffering, is seen to walk out of the court. One has only to imagine the reaction of ordinary people—police, soldiers and all the rest—in Northern Ireland who have risked their lives to apprehend the person concerned and to bring him to justice.

Mr. McNamara: To get the record straight, I am sure that the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) will accept that it is not only people who claim to be members of the IRA, whether of one wing or the other, who have refused to recognise the court's jurisdiction. There have been people in what I might call Unionist circles who also have refused to recognise the jurisdiction of the court. Does not the hon. Gentleman also accept that, whether a person is a member of one of the extreme Republican organisations or a member of one of the extreme Unionist organisations, if we have a system of law—whether it be what exists at the moment or something which will come about as a result of the Bill—it is nevertheless the duty of the prosecution to prove that a person is guilty and not to take it on the say-so of the phrase

"everyone knows" or "everyone suspects"?
I am sure that what the hon. Gentleman is seeking to defend, as are we on this side of the House, is the acceptability of what we would regard as United Kingdom standards. Any lessening of United Kingdom standards is a concept which I am sure the hon. Gentleman would regret as much as we would. I am sure he and I would agree on the fact that anybody who refuses to recognise the jurisdiction of the court commits a grave offence, but I feel that the hon. Gentleman in putting his argument should not put forward particular adjectives or use certain initial letters.

Mr. McMaster: The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) has raised two points. If he looks at paragraph 4 of the Diplock Report, he will see there set out by the learned judge and his colleagues the reasons why the Committee felt it right that ordinary standards may be set aside—and we know that even the human rights convention admits of some circumstances in which ordinary principles may be set aside.
On the detailed point raised by the hon. Gentleman, I am not aware of any Unionist organisation whose members have refused to recognise the court. It may well exist, but it is a point of detail.
The point I am trying to make is more general and more important. We want to see law and order and peace restored in Northern Ireland. It is not conducive to the restoration of law and order that the great mass of the people in Northern Ireland, who wish the violence to be brought to an end, should see people not recognising the court and thereby avoiding the ordinary processes of law. The ordinary processes of law in this country are so drawn that they favour the accused. It is circumstances such as those that cause embitterment and make more difficult the situation in Northern Ireland.
The primary duty of this House is to establish law and order and to go to whatever extent is necessary to do so. The main function of government is to see that the Queen's peace prevails throughout the country. This is the fundamental point. Clearly in the past three years in Northern Ireland the


Queen's peace has not prevailed. All kinds of steps are being taken in a constitutional fashion to reconcile the two elements in the population. It obviously exacerbates the situation when people who are accused of committing violence use the rules of law to avoid conviction. Their success in defeating the processes of law is an outrage. It makes the situation in Northern Ireland much more difficult and it makes the solution of the problem more remote.
Therefore, although Clause 5 may be offensive to all practising lawyers and to people who hold in high esteem the legal principles on which our laws of evidence are founded, it is necessary within the limits prescribed in the Bill. This will enable the public to be satisfied that justice is not only being done but is seen to be done in Northern Ireland.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: No. 8, in page 4, line 1, leave out from 'offence' to 'a' in line 2.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause 6

ADMISSIONS BY PERSONS CHARGED WITH SCHEDULED OFFENCES

Amendment made: No. 10, in page 4, leave out line 15.—[The Solicitor-General.]

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in line 21, leave out 'it is proved' and insert:
'prima facie evidence is adduced'.
With this Amendment it will be convenient to take Amendment No. 12, in page 4, line 22, leave out from ' accused 'to second to' in line 23 and insert:
'or some other person was subjected to or threatened with torture or inhuman or degrading treatment in order to induce the accused'
and Government Amendment No. 13.
This matter was discussed in Committee at some length. It places on the accused the burden of proof that he has been subject to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. I undertook to look at the matter again. The provision is based on an Opposition amendment which used the phrase "prima facie", it being accepted on all sides that no empty allegation would suffice and that it would have to be an allegation which the court

would be able to look at. Therefore, athough it is unusual in the experience of parliamentary draftsmen to use it, it seems to us to be, as it was considered by the Opposition to be, the best way of putting it.
The position now will be that if a prima facie case is raised by the accused alleging that he was subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment his statement will not be admissible unless the prosecution satisfies the court that the statement was not obtained in that way.
It appears to be an amendment which meets the objections raised in Committee.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: I welcome the conversion of the Government to the view that in relation to this clause the onus of proof should, as it normally is in a criminal trial, be upon the prosecution. It gives me some ground for hoping that when we come to Clause 7 the Government may take the same view. I also welcome the conversion of the parliamentary draftsmen to the startling innovation of using Latin. I am grateful to them for using words which were contained in the amendment which the Opposition moved in Committee.
What is not included in the Government's concessions is the content of Amendment No. 12, which we are discussing with these two Government amendments. It was pointed out in Committee that where a situation exists such as that contemplated in subsection (2)—that is to say, an accused person is likely to be subjected, in the terms used by the Government and borrowed by them from the European Convention, to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment—it is at least as likely that that kind of treatment will be accorded to some other person in order to influence the accused to make a statement—one has in mind his wife or child especially—and it is at least as likely that either the accused or some other person, though not subjected to these forms of treatment, might be threatened with them in order to make him make an admission.
I hope that we are thinking in terms of a situation which is highly unlikely to arise in any event within the terms of the subsection as it now exists. We are contemplating the possibility that someone might make a statement as a result


of being subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. However, that is not the state of affairs that we wish to contemplate even in relation to the form of justice which Part I of the Bill provides. But we have to do so, and the Government have been right to put in such a clause. If it is right to do that to cover what we hope and believe to be a very unlikely circumstance, it is right that the clause should cover the equally unlikely circumstance which we describe in Amendment No. 12.
In Committee I expressed the hope that the Government would think again and ask themselves not so much how vital it was to put in this provision but, rather, whether any harm would be done by putting the provision in, thereby avoiding the situation in which a judge might be forced to construe evidence as being admissible even though he felt that it had been obtained in the manner described by us and that its weight, therefore, would not be as great as if it had been given freely.
Again I express the hope that between now and the discussions on this matter in another place the Government will have second thoughts.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 13, in page 4, line 24, after 'shall', insert
', unless the prosecution satisfies them that the statement was not so obtained'.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Clause 7

ONUS OF PROOF IN RELATION TO OFFENCES OF POSSESSION

Mr. S. C. Silkin: I beg to move Amendment No. 14, in page 4, line 38, leave out from ' proved to the end of subsection and insert:
'as evidence of his possessing (and, if relevant, knowingly possessing) that article at that time; provided that if there is evidence that he did not at that time know of its presence in the premises in question, or if he did know, that he had no control over it, the court shall not convict the defendant unless it is satisfied that the offence was committed by him'.
In my last remark on Clause 6 I welcomed the fact that the burden of proof in relation to that clause had by a Government amendment been returned to where it normally lies in a criminal trial. The purpose of this amendment is to try

to produce the same in relation to Clause 7.
I say at once that I am not completely satisfied with the drafting of the amendment. But the House will be aware that drafting at very short notice was required in order to table the amendments in time for this stage of the Bill. If the Government were to say "We accept the principle and will put in our own drafting at a later stage" I should be more than happy.
Clause 7 is a startling change in the normal principles of criminal law. I referred to it in my speech on new Clause 1. The position under this clause is that anyone who is present in the same building, ship, aircraft or vehicle as a gun, ammunition or explosive, however remote he may be from where it is found and however little he may have to do with the existence or finding of it, is, from the mere fact that he is in the same building, vessel and so on, to be prima facie held to be guilty of the offence of possessing that article.
Though one sees the necessity for some such provision, as the Diplock Report explained, the way that it has been done in this Bill is a very startling change from that to which we are used. Once one has gone only that distance the burden is placed on the defendant to prove, in effect, that he was innocent. That is to say, either he did not know it was there—which in many cases will be by no means easy to prove—or that he had no control over the article.
Our amendment accepts the necessity for making a provision of this kind. But what it seeks to do in the end is to put the burden of proof back where it normally belongs, upon the prosecution. I hope the amendment fulfils that purpose. However, if it does not the Government can redraft it. I suggest to the Government that this is an important matter and an important question of principle, just as important as the one concerning their concession in their amendment to the previous clause.
Accordingly we want from the Government a clear undertaking that this point also will be considered with a view to the possibility—again I am not asking more than that—that at a later stage a proper amendment to change the burden of proof will be produced by the Government.

The Solicitor-General: This topic was the subject of a lengthy debate in committee. As the House will know, it arises directly from the Diplock Report, particularly an example given in that report. will quote paragraph 69.
A striking illustration is provided by a case in which a gun was found in the bedroom in which three brothers slept. It was hidden under some male clothing on top of a chest of drawers. All three brothers were in the room when the gun was discovered by the police. All three disclaimed any knowledge of its presence. At the trial of the three accused the judge allowed the prosecution's case to go to the jury. None of the accused gave evidence in his own defence, so none could be cross-examined. Each elected to make an unsworn statement from the dock. It is a matter of no surprise that the jury convicted all three of them. The Court of Criminal Appeal set aside the convictions on the ground that there was in law not sufficient evidence against any one of the accused to justify his allowing the case to go to the jury
That striking example is the foundation and basis for the clause in the Bill. There are similar, and in some cases more severe, provisions existing in legislation for this country such as the Prevention of Corruption Act 1916, which provides that upon proof of certain gifts having been made they shall be deemed to have been given corruptly unless the contrary is proved. That is rather more severe than the clause in the Bill, because the Bill says that the court may accept paragraphs (a) and (b) as proof of possession.
It is right to remind the House that when in those circumstances the burden shifts to the extent set out in the clause, it is nothing like the extent to which the burden rests upon the prosecution when it has to prove something either beyond reasonable doubt or to the court's satisfaction. In this case the burden upon the accused is to satisfy the court of the probability of that which the accused is called upon to establish.
If the court accepts the facts in paragraphs (a) and (b) as proof of possession in a particular case, the burden will shift to the defendant to show only that he probably did not know of, or had no control over, the offending objects in order to secure his acquittal. That seems a reasonable position, particularly when one bears in mind that striking example in the Diplock Report, which, unfortunately, stands not by itself but is hap-

pening too commonly in Northern Ireland today.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: Before he sits down, would the hon. and learned Gentleman enlighten the House on this point? It seemed to me that the Diplock illustration would, if the clause were in the amended form which we suggest, be dealt with just as well as if it remained unamended. If the hon. and learned Gentleman does not agree with that, why not?

The Solicitor-General: Those who have been advising me upon this have, with the greatest respect to those who drafted the amendment, found it difficult to understand exactly what its consequences would be. In any event, we consider that the Bill as drafted would be more effective, and that is how we should prefer to leave it.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. McMaster: I make no apology for intervening. [Interruption.] I did not serve on the Committee, and as this is Report stage I feel that, as a Member who is concerned and as an Ulster Member, I might be allowed a word or two. I am rather upset that some hon. Members should think I am not entitled to speak on the amendment.
The tabling of the amendment illustrates yet again the unrealism in this House about the current state of affairs in Northern Ireland. If one studies the figures of crime, of those charged and those convicted, it is patently obvious that the ordinary rules of evidence are not adequate to deal with the situation. The Solicitor-General has read one example from the Diplock Report. There are other examples. All that a terrorist has to do when a weapon or explosives are found, apparently, is to refuse to give evidence. The onus of proof is then upon the prosecution. It is practically impossible to establish that the accused person was aware of the presence of the weapons and, therefore, is guilty. Unless one can shift the onus of proof on to the accused person to give evidence to establish that he did not know, if he refuses to give evidence at all he is entitled, under the existing rules, to the benefit of the doubt and he will be acquitted.
Many such cases have been cited to me in Belfast by my legal friends in which


great trouble has been taken to secure the arrest and the bringing to trial of an accused person. This situation is an outrage which cannot be tolerated in present circumstances.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: I wanted to point out to the hon. Gentleman what I think he does not appreciate—I do not criticise him for that, because it is a question of drafting: that if the situation were as he described it and the defendant refused to give evidence, the amendment would do no harm whatever of the kind he has in mind.

Mr. McMaster: I am grateful for that point, which helps me. However, the amendment to some extent weakens the provisions of Clause 7 and thus helps the accused. I would say that there was no purpose in it unless it was to help the accused.
Because of the existing circumstances in Northern Ireland, it is very important that we should be particularly mindful of our prime duty, which is to protect the general public. Therefore, I cannot support any amendment, even though it does not go to the full extent of restoring the ordinary rules that apply in this country, which makes it in any way easier for the accused to escape conviction.
In other words, the extraordinarily severe—I say that advisedly—provisions, not only of Clause 7 but of the rest of the Bill, are necessary so that the public may be protected from the fanatical criminals who are carrying out their dastardly acts in Northern Ireland at such tremendous cost to the community. I feel that perhaps it is the argument of the end justifying the means.
In view of the earlier intervention of the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees), may I say that I recognise the necessity for Opposition Members to question these rules. I do not imply in any way that by putting down these amendments and debating them they are seeking to undermine the Army, the police or the Government. Nevertheless, I also feel it my duty as a Member for a Northern Ireland constituency to speak out and express my feeling that these unusual provisions are unnecessary, and to draw the attention of the House to the ends to which terrorists, and particularly the Provisional IRA, are pre

pared to go in Northern Ireland to achieve their end by violence. It is simply because of the existence of these people and the failure of the police and the ordinary course of justice to come to grips and deal satisfactorily with the situation that I support the provisions as set out in the Bill, and I ask the House to reject the amendment put forward by hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Fitt: I do not wish to detain the House on this amendment, but, having gone into it, I believe it was written with the intention of preventing the conviction of an innocent person. Anyone having any experience of Northern Ireland will know only too well that it is all too easy to create a set of circumstances whereby an innocent person could be convicted.
As at present drafted, the legislation refers to "premises". That could mean either business premises or residential premises, and a backyard could be part of the curtilage of such premises. It is not beyond the bounds of imagination that some particular kind of action could be taken by a man of violence, whether a member of the Provisional IRA, the UFF, the UDA or other extreme organisations. For example, in a Catholic area there might be a person who was opposed to the activities of the men of violence and he might be foolish enough to make his opinion known in that district, perhaps going into shops and talking to persons or making his position known at social functions and making clear that he was opposed to men of violence.
It is then quite possible for such a man to get a revolver and bullets and in the early hours of the morning to place them in the backyard of the particular residence, and then to use the confidential telephone to inform the security forces that it was suspected that arms were to be found at that residence. The security forces would then raid that residence and find the revolver and ammunition, and under the present legislation the person occupying those premises would have to prove that he had absolutely no knowledge that the weapon or the ammunition was there.

Mr. McMaster: The hon. Gentleman appears to be misunderstanding what I was arguing. All I am saying is that if a person in the circumstances described by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) gives a reasonable explanation,


that is sufficient. He has simply to give some satisfactory explanation. I have been giving a case, cited in the Diplock Report, where no evidence at all was given and where under the existing rules that person might well in those circumstances escape because of the rules relating to the onus of proof. But if he gives evidence and can give a satisfactory explanation that is the end of it.

Mr. Fitt: I believe the hon. Member will agree that under the proposed legislation the onus of proof rests on the person in the premises wherein the arms were found. This is not restricted only to members of the Catholic population who have shown abhorrence of the provisional IRA. It can also happen to many thousands of decent Protestants. Recently, in the polling in the Assembly elections they have shown that they have no time for the men of violence on their side; and exactly the same set of circumstances as I have illustrated could occur in the constituency represented by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster). Some tribute must be paid to the hon. Member's constituents because they rejected anyone who had the least association with para-military organisations in that area.
However, men of violence stop at nothing to win their war. They will use every unscruplous, filthy tactic to subject people opposed to them and who make their opinions known, if they are contrary to those of the men of violence, and who hope by making their opinions known to gain support in opposition to the men of violence.
The amendment is designed to protect innocent people. We recognise that emergency legislation of this kind is a gross departure from anything that has been passed in this House before; we recognise that it is a gross departure from British insistence on a fair and just judicial system. If it is implemented it will put the lives and fortunes of many people at serious risk in Northern Ireland. Surely the Government can have no serious objection to an amendment deliberately designed to prevent innocent people from being convicted because of the actions of their arch-enemies, the men of violence?

Amendment negatived.

Clause 9

REMAND HOMES AND TRAINING SCHOOLS

The Minister of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. William van Straubenzee): I beg to move Amendment No. 15, in page 6, line 19, after 'available', insert:
', in the second place where it occurs,'
I can deal with this very shortly. It is a drafting amendment which arises out of the fact that in Section 53(2) of the Children and Young Persons Act (Northern Ireland) 1968 the word "available", as I pointed out to the Committee, occurs twice. It is, therefore, right for exactitude of drafting now to make the matter clear beyond doubt.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10

ARREST AND DETENTION OF TERRORISTS

Mr. McNamara: I beg to move Amendment No. 16, in page 7, line 40, leave out subsection (5).

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris):: With this we can also take for debate Amendment No. 23, in page 20, line 2, leave out Schedule 1.

Mr. McNamara: To put the Opposition view on this matter into context I think I had better quote, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) did in Committee, the words of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in his speech of 25th November 1971, that
internment would cease as soon as the necessary conditions exist for an improvement in confidence, it being understood that all against whom criminal charges were to be preferred would be subject to normal criminal procedure."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th November 1971 Vol. 826, c. 1588.]
Again, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South said, we are not saying that by a stroke of a pen the problem of Long Kesh can be ended. It was a long time growing and it can be ended only by political developments whereby the leaders and people of Northern Ireland face their problems. They cannot be faced by troops from England day by day. It is a matter for the people of Northern Ireland.
It is important to point out what my right hon. Friend said. He did not say that internment would end when peace came. He did not suggest that internment should end as soon as all the violence had ceased. He said that
internment would cease as soon as the necessary conditions exist for an improvement in confidence.
It is an improvement in confidence that we are looking for, and that we are hoping for as a result of the Assembly elections.
8.45 p.m.
In many ways, many of the people who were forgotten during the last set of elections in Northern Ireland were those who were in internment. Granted that many of the political parties mentioned them and recognised that they were there. By and large, however, the population of Northern Ireland ignored their presence. The population looked for peace and for an Assembly which would work on a power-sharing basis. But whether or not the people of Northern Ireland ignored them, we in this Parliament cannot ignore them, for a number of reasons which I shall enunciate.
If we ignore these people now, sooner or later, as night follows day, the problem of Long Kesh and the people who are therein imprisoned will face us. Whilst properly concentrating on the immediate problems associated with the Assembly and the new political associations in Northern Ireland, if we allow ourselves for one moment to forget the problem of Long Kesh—whether in terms of the extreme Republicans or the extreme Unionists at present imprisoned there—we risk losing any chance of getting that political peace that we want. It is in that context that we must look at the question of internment.
Opposition Members are roughly divided into two main groups in our attitude towards internment. One group says specifically that internment was a mistake, that it should end and that it was wrong. The other group says that internment was, perhaps, necessary but that internment plus what we have already passed this evening, contained in the Bill, is not necessary; one or the other thing is not necessary. That group says that if we pass—as we have done—the early clauses of the Bill, internment should go.
The people of that latter group, however, may also be subdivided, some into a group which says that, perhaps, in many ways internment is preferable to the bastardisation of the law which we have achieved through the acceptance of the majority of the recommendations of the Diplock Commission. I say that even though the Government have gone some way to accepting some of our criticisms of the Bill in Committee.
We say that internment is a mistake which, if it continues to exist, will be a cancer in the body politic of Northern Ireland. In whatever section of the community it exists, it is seen as a derogation of normal standards of civilised behaviour. It is easy to argue and to say immediately that the people who have been suspected of perpetuating terrible crimes have themselves derogated from those same standards of civilised behaviour, but we claim that in a civilised society there are ways of dealing with such people which will not offend the general tenets of liberty and human dignity. Internment fails to meet that point.
There have also been occasions when the Government have failed to seize opportunities which have existed to do away with internment. The imposition of direct rule and Operation Motorman were two such occasions when internment could, perhaps, have been done away with at a stroke. In that way the Government could have ensured that the main grievances of the ordinary person in Northern Ireland, who had felt his dignity affronted by internment on 9th August, could have been done away with.
I say that for this reason. I have had considerable correspondence with persons who have been interned in Northern Ireland, or with their families. I have had complaints one way or another. I have had letters from the families of internees, but, although there have been murmurings about evidence being "planted", I have not had one letter from a person convicted of a criminal offence associated with the present troubles or from the relative of such a person. I hope that in saying that I am not risking my fate at the hands of fortune and inviting many letters from relatives of people in prison.
Internment fails if people do not feel that, even in a society which they may not accept as being politically just, they


are being treated fairly. The Government may argue that since direct rule they have released many internees who were arrested in the original sweeps of 9th August onwards and that those who remain have been before commissioners or the appeal tribunal and, therefore, are justifiably detained in Long Kesh. This may well be so. Although I do not grant that argument, it does not overcome the tremendous feeling of injustice in the minority community, which exists particularly after there have been disturbances at one of the internment centres and families have returned home after failing to visit relatives. It is this core and cancer in the body politic of Northern Ireland which is causing the trouble.

Mr. van Straubenzee: I have been waiting to see whether the hon. Gentleman would come to a point which I think the House will wish him to elucidate in respect of the amendment. He has tended to move away from it. He will understand that the combined effect of the Bill is to repeal the Special Powers Act and the Detention of Terrorists Order. The effect of the amendment would be to delete Schedule 1, which would mean that, upon the Bill becoming law, there would be no authority for the detention of those at present in detention and they would all have to be released immediately. Is that the hon. Gentleman's intention? I ask because it appears to conflict with his opening words.

Mr. McNamara: If the hon. Gentleman had looked at matters a little more carefully, he would see that if our amendment is accepted the present Detention of Terrorists Order will stand until we reach the last Government amendment. which shifts the Detention of Terrorists Order from Schedule 1 to the repeals schedule of the Bill. If the hon. Gentleman considers that he has repealed the Special Powers Act by taking back every power apart from being able to refuse a coroner's inquest on a person who dies in custody, he can fool himself but not me or the rest of the House.

Mr. van Straubenzee: There is an important point here. I was aware of that point, and I hope to move that amendment. It is only a repositioning of the repeal. There is no amendment to do away with the repeal. Is it the

Opposition's position that, if the schedule is taken from the Bill, those at present in detention should remain in detention under the powers in the Detention of Terrorists Order? It will be helpful if the hon. Member will make this clear.

Mr. McNamara: We are saying to the Minister that he cannot have both. If he looks carefully at the point I made earlier when I quoted my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South, he will recognise the point we are making. We realise that there are nearly 1,000 men in the Maze prison. We cannot simply open the doors tomorrow and tell them all to go. Equally, however, the Minister knows that, if he took his argument to its logical conclusion, he could introduce an amendment in another place to retain the Detention of Terrorists Order, bring the Bill back here and see what happens. Judging from the way the Government have acted on other Bills in this respect recently, they would probably get their way.
A practical point is that until the Bill becomes law the Detention of Terrorists Order will remain in force and we shall have time to think about the problem. If we managed to persuade the Government to concentrate on how to deal with the problem, we should have achieved something.
It may be that the Secretary of State will make a tremendous gesture about internment when he announces the formation of the Executive or when the Assembly meets. Perhaps he will be able to announce, as we hoped he would at the time of the imposition of direct rule, and even more so at the time of Operation Motorman, that we shall get rid of it. That brings me to the second point of the amendment, which was raised so eloquently by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) in Committee, that, with the powers given to the Government in Committee, even without our amendment, which we do not intend to press, there are sufficient provisions in the Bill to end internment.
When the Diplock Committee was established the Government gave it as its terms of reference to consider
what arrangements for the administration of justice in Northern Ireland could be made in order to deal more effectively with terrorist organisations by bringing to book, otherwise


than by internment by the Executive, individuals involved in terrorist activities".
The Diplock Committee had three possible courses of action. It could have said that it found no alternative, it could have suggested a system of diluted justice such as we have seen earlier in the Bill, or it could have said that a system of special courts such as exists in the Republic was needed.
It said that it did not want special courts but, instead of saying that it recommended internment, which many of my hon. Friends think would have been a more honourable course of action, it said that it wanted internment and diluted justice. The Opposition do not believe that the Government can have both those powers. That would be asking too much. By diluting justice, as has been laid down in the earlier part of the Bill, and departing from the normal standards accepted in this country, we are lowering the value of the courts, and of a conviction in the courts.
9.0 p.m.
We are, perhaps more importantly, making it appear that no matter where a person goes, or what he does, he will be caught up by the Government. If he is acquitted, he will be interned, as has happened. If he is interned and the Government get sufficient evidence, they will put him on trial. People are caught on a terrible Morton's Fork. The Opposition cannot recommend the House or the country to accept the system.
The Alliance Party's manifesto contained on the back page a statement that:
The law of Northern Ireland must be applied with absolute fairness and absolute impartiality in all areas—but it must be applied.
Both sides of the House will agree about that. The manifesto added that the law must also be respected. That is something we feel deeply about. The provisions of the Bill and the continuation of internment prevent the law from being respected.
The manifesto states what is also the Opposition's view, that:
In our view no man should lose his liberty except through due process of law. Short-cuts such as internment without trial are wrong. They not only offend against the concept of the Rule of Law but also make the task of law enforcement more difficult, particularly in a divided community. Extraordinary circum

stances of major violence demand exceptional measures from Westminster. But those measures must at all times comply with the fundamental principles of justice. No man is guilty until proved guilty.
I have regretfully come to the conclusion that in the changed circumstances since the original internment of 9th August internment may now be necessary, but the bastard system grafted on to it of tribunals and cases going before commissioners in the name of justice is no form of justice at all.
These are the reasons for our amendment.

Mr. McMaster: The final remarks of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) gave a clue to the entire problem. Internment is not desirable. On the other hand, it is wrong to try to persuade oneself or the House that ending internment would, as the hon. Gentleman said earlier, remedy a grievance and thus perhaps lead to peace in Northern Ireland.
Internment did not come first. The campaign of violence proceeded for some time, and escalated, before internment was introduced. Following direct rule, a large number of those interned were released but, far from bringing any reduction in violence, this resulted in the violence escalating, and, unfortunately, some of those who had been interned and later released were involved. They were caught and were again either interned or brought before the courts.
It is clear to anyone who visits the internment camps that many people who are interned are members of the illegal—illegal in Northern Ireland—Provisional IRA. They organise in the internment camps and march—and riot, as we have seen in the last 24 hours. When they escape they again engage in terrorist activities. These people are known terrorists. It is impossible, and has been impossible in the past, to establish that they are guilty of any offence. But in the situation in Northern Ireland it is essential that they should be locked away to protect the general public.
If it were not for the presence of fanatical members of the Republican movement who have been waging war on the general community in Northern Ireland, internment would not be necessary. But to suggest that releasing the internees will bring peace in Ulster is to


delude oneself. We have only to look at the history of the past three years.
Grievances are spoken of as though the cause of the trouble in Northern Ireland was simply the grievances alleged to have existed. But concessions were made by Lord O'Neill when he was Prime Minister and by Lord Moyola, who, as Major Chichester-Clark, was Prime Minister after him. For the past 16 months the House has been responsible, and yet terrorism continues right up to this moment. Therefore, it will be realised that there is more to ending the trouble than simply remedying grievances.
That is why I cannot accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North that to remedy this grievance might lead to peace in Northern Ireland. The truth is that those behind the violence are not seeking the remedying of grievances. If they were, they would have stopped fighting long ago. They are seeking a political end, and are prepared to go to any length, including murdering and torturing their fellow citizens, to achieve it. Faced with such a situation, which I think the hon. Gentleman described as almost being war, civil war, we must use extraordinary measures to cope with it. It is for that reason that, although we have the elaborate provisions of the Bill, the dilution of justice, as the hon. Gentleman said, it is not enough.
The members of the IRA are known, because they have appeared on television and in the rest of the media when invited to do so. I regret that the media have played such a mischievous part in the past three years in playing up those people, interviewing them repeatedly for their publicity value, and have ignored their duty to the general public, not only in Northern Ireland but in the United Kingdom as a whole, to support established authority, the police and the security forces. Instead, they have helped to play up the terrorists in such a way that they have assisted them in maintaining their campaign of violence and gathering funds for its furtherance.
It is necessary to arrest those men, men who have appeared on television and the radio, have been interviewed by the Press and have made public statements, men like Sean MacStiofain, who, by their own admission, are leading

terrorists. They may never be caught in possession of a gun. They do not commit the foul murders, the shooting in the back of the head, the shaving of women's heads and tarring and feathering, the things we know about in Northern Ireland. Earlier in the debate an hon. Member spoke about the Nazis. The people I am speaking about are every bit as vicious as the Nazis. I am speaking not of those who carry the gun and commit the act of violence, but those behind them who plan the violence. They are the people whom it must be possible to intern when they are arrested, in order to attempt to bring the situation under control.
It is not only the weaknesses of the criminal law that are behind the necessity for the dilution of justice set out in the Bill. It is also necessary because of the other gap which still remains, the fact that the ringleaders cannot be locked away unless there is a system of internment which is supported until law and order are completely restored in Northern Ireland. That is why I feel that the provisions must be retained until peace is completely restored in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Although I am passionately concerned with the situation in Northern Ireland, I have kept away almost entirely from the debates which have stemmed from the Government's White Paper, the Northern Ireland Constitution Bill, the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Bill and this Bill. That is because I am an opponent of the White Paper and I do not believe that a settlement is possible under the terms of the White Paper. Therefore, the provisions of the three Bills which have been introduced in consequence of the White Paper have struck me variously as irrelevant or repugnant.
Except for making one speech to demonstrate my view of the irrelevance of the Constitution Bill, I kept away from that measure. To demonstrate the repugnance which I feel for this present Bill, I have so far kept away from it. However, the amendment is a suitable one on which to state my view. It is symbolic of the lack of reality underlying the Government's policy.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) was right when he said


that the people whom the Government may wish to intern are, as he put it, seeking a political end. The people who are causing the appalling terror and bloodshed in Northern Ireland, which the hon. Gentleman describes so graphically from his own experience, are political extremists of the most abhorrent kind. But the fact that they are such extremists does not mean that they should be interned without trial. It means that, until they are alienated from the population in which they are embedded, the filthy deeds which they continually perpetrate will continue.
The hon. Gentleman gave the game away in his brief contribution. He said—I took down his words—that terrorism continues right up to this very moment. Of course it does. Day after day we read, we hear on the radio and we see on television the most unspeakable and evil acts committed by terrorists against innocent members of both communities. in Northern Ireland. Not only do they go on, but they continue to rise towards a crescendo which cannot be anticipated. All this happens while internment without trial continues.
Those who argued that we required capital punishment to keep down murder had their argument invalidated because capital punishment was accompanied by murder. In the same way, to argue in favour of internment without trial to deal with terrorism will be proved wrong because we have terrorism and we also have internment without trial. There is no indication—and no evidence can be produced to this effect—that the end of internment without trial will create more terrorism. I believe that terrorism will go on with or without internment without trial because terrorism is not something to be controlled by punishment. The only way it can be dealt with is by a political solution.
9.15 p.m.
I have constantly disagreed with certain of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench, just as I disagree with hon. Members opposite, when they say that to deal with terrorism must be a prime aim with a political solution, just as much as I strongly disagree with those hon. Members on the Government side who believe that no political solution is possible until terrorism is dealt with, because I believe

that there will be no end to terrorism in Ireland as a whole—it is not confined to the North—until the Irish themselves deal with it and until no British soldier is there as a cushion between the Irish terriorists and the Irish people.

Mr. McMaster: The hon. Gentleman is missing the point. As he says, terrorism will go on whether or not there is internment. But he should think of the position of the ordinary man in the street who sees known terrorists going about. Cannot the hon. Gentleman understand the feelings of outrage of a person who has perhaps lost his wife, his sister or his child, or who has been injured himself, when he sees known terrorists interviewed on television, admitting to being the ringleaders of terrorism, and yet they are not put away? What sort of violence will result from that outrage of the people? That is why internment is necessary while violence goes on.

Mr. Kaufman: I can well understand the feeling of outrage which consumes people in Northern Ireland when they see what is happening to their dear ones. That sense of outrage seizes one when one sees all the bloodshed and violence in one's home on television in Manchester or in London. Where I strongly disagree with the hon. Gentleman is in his belief that the piling on of force or repression will deal with terrorism.
I know that I am in a minority in holding this view, but I submit that there is no way that the British Parliament and the British Armed Forces can deal with this situation, because it is not a British problem. I will go further. Just as I believe that it is not a British problem and that the only way it can be dealt with is by the people of Ireland themselves, North and South, Catholic and Protestant, taking whatever action they think fit in order to deal with the terrorism, equally I believe that the ordinary people of Great Britain, not simply parliamentarians, will not find it possible very much longer to accept a situation in which methods so totally alien and abhorrent to them are used in dealing with the terrorist situation.
One of our proudest and most cherished possessions in this island is the system of the rule of law, which we guard very closely. We are proud of it. Whenever it is invaded in any way, hon. Members


on both sides of the House leap to protect it.
What I see with growing sickness is I hat for Ireland the British people are sullying their own feelings for justice by the methods which they feel compelled to use in order to hold down Northern Ireland. I strongly take the view—I believe that it is being shared more and more by the people of this country, a minority though we may be—that if that is the only way in which Great Britain can hold Northern Ireland, Great Britain had better resign herself to leave Northern Ireland, because it is far better to free Ireland and her problems from the British grasp than to go on with a grasp which means that the traditions of justice that we cherish in this country are filthied and sullied in the way they are at present.
It is tragic that many sincere Members of this House who stand for the rule of law have to go into the Lobby tonight and vote for methods of keeping law and order in Northern Ireland which they would not accept for one instant in their own constituencies in Great Britian.
My attitude, not simply to this issue but to the Bill as a whole, is not only that we cannot hold Northern Ireland without the methods which the hon. Gentleman champions but that we cannot hold Northern Ireland even with the methods which he champions. Greatly though I care for the people of Northern Ireland, greatly though I mourn for their troubles, I believe it is better for Ireland and better for the people of this country if we admit that we cannot hold Northern Ireland any more except by methods of barbarism, to use Campbell Bannerman's great phrase.
Since methods of barbarism have over decades been proved unacceptable to the ordinary British man in the street, they cannot be accepted in Northern Ireland. The malaise which is symbolised by the amendment so eloquently moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) is one which goes right through the Bill and right through the Government's policy on Northern Ireland.
As I said in a speech on the Northern Ireland Constitutional Bill, the sooner we realise that Northern Ireland is not part of Britain but is a different country

which we confuse with part of Britain because it is nearer and because its inhabitants speak English, the sooner we accept that Northern Ireland is simply the last in a series which included Palestine, Aden, British Guiana and Cyprus, the sooner we come to this inevitable conclusion, the sooner will the British people—my constituents—stop being killed and the sooner will the Irish be able to settle their own problems.

Mr. McMaster: The hon. Gentleman is missing the point. It is not a matter of holding Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman and his party supported the plebiscite and the two elections we have had. The elections showed, as did the plebiscite by 600,000 votes to 6,000, that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and wishes to remain part of it. What he is suggesting is that, because there is a small minority using violence, we should give in to that minority rather than meet the challenge.

Mr. Kaufman: I must tell the hon. Gentleman, for what my small minority view is worth, that I have consistently dissociated myself from the general view of my Front Bench on this, although my Front Bench did not support the referendum and tried to delete it from the constitution.

Mr. Orme: My hon. Friend will recognise that we have always opposed detention without trial. We voted against it.

Mr. Kaufman: I accept that not only my party in general but my hon. Friends on the Front Bench in particular have a shining record on this. What I was saying in reply to the general point made by the hon. Member for Belfast, East was that although my party as a whole has certainly, mistakenly in my view over the past 24 years, supported the border guarantee of the Attlee Government, I have never supported it. I regard it as a tragic and mistaken guarantee.
The whole notion of the United Kingdom is a fiction of a nature which misleads us here. I do not accept the notion of a United Kingdom. It is something produced by the minority in Ireland to bamboozle the rest of us into thinking that Northern Ireland is part of an idea called the United Kingdom.
I do not believe that there is a Northern Irish problem. I believe that there


is an Irish problem. The majority in Northern Ireland for which the hon. Gentleman speaks both eloquently and sincerely is nevertheless a minority in Ireland. That majority in Northern Ireland is being permitted to place a veto upon the future of the whole of Ireland. If the only way in which Britain can continue to link Northern Ireland with it is by employing these methods of barbarism—internment without trial and the rest—the sooner we abandon this fiction, the sooner we accept the inevitable and allow Ireland and all the Irish to solve their own problems, Catholic and Protestant together, the sooner will the killing end. As long as we continue to use these methods, the killing will surely accompany them.

Mr. Fitt: My attitude on internment has been made clear from the first time it was mentioned here by the Secretary of State. I well remember that on the assumption of direct rule the Secretary of State said that the Government would take steps to bring to an end the notorious Special Powers Act, with which we have lived since 1922, which has been responsible for the alienation and polarisation of the communities and which has brought untold trouble.
I hoped then that the Special Powers Act would be completely repealed. As time went on we were disillusioned. There was the introduction of internment with hundreds of people interned—on one occasion more than a thousand. Then there was the Detention of Terrorists Order, and now in this proposed legislation internment without trial is to be continued.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House are opposed in principle to the continuation of internment. I recognise that there are men of violence in Northern Ireland who are determined to bring about their political aims by continuing violence. The continuation of internment will not deter those men from proceeding along the path they have chosen to achieve their political ends.
We were told by the then Unionist Government, which had the support of the Conservative Party, that internment had to be introduced to stop the men of violence. In fact, it did not do so. There has been an escalation of violence, an escalation in the number of deaths and in the number of atrocious crimes that

have been committed, which are not restricted to one section of the Community.
It becomes a little irritating to hear the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) continuously blaming every death, atrocity, explosion and killing on the IRA. There have been many brutal and callous killings committed by people on the Unionist side of the fence—Unionist extremists—yet the hon. Member for Belfast, East in every speech he makes in this House seeks to attribute all the violence to one section of the Community.
Internment will in no way deter those men of violence. Even though there may be a small section of the Unionist majority in Northern Ireland interned at the moment, I am as much in favour of their release as of the release of all the others who are interned.
I pose a question to the Secretary of State which he will eventually have to answer. Within the bounds of Long Kesh—or Maze Prison as it is politely called—there are innocent men. There are men with Republican backgrounds, born of Republican families, dedicated to the ideal of the reunification of Ireland and bringing about an Irish Government in the 32 counties involving the Irish people. They are men who have not been involved in violence, but they have been interned since August 1971—interned because of their ideals.
9.30 p.m.
There is another category of men who have now been interned for a considerable time. I refer to young people who have been caught up in the wave of violence, young persons of 17, 18, 19 and 20 years of age. In the campaign at the moment they have said that they want no further association—if indeed they ever had any—with the campaign of violence. They are prepared to sign petitions and to give any undertaking which the Secretary of State may demand to seek their release.
Many of the men interned have serious domestic problems, problems involving their wives, children and their families. All they seek at the moment is their release from incarceration in Long Kesh. They are prepared to give any undertaking asked of them by the Secretary of State. 


Is it not strange that the Secretary of State now seems to take the view that those men were involved in violence. He believes that they were so involved and, therefore, they are not to be afforded the opportunity of changing their minds. Many of those who were originally interned now realise the futility of the campaign of violence and are now seeking, by the only means left open to them, to petition the Secretary of State. They have appeared before the commissioners and have been legally represented before the tribunals. They have gone to appeal, but the appeals have been rejected by the commissioners. The only redress open to them is to petition the Secretary of State.
If the Secretary of State takes the view that these men cannot be released, one can only foresee that there will be a series of riots, such as we had yesterday afternoon, in the Maze prison, or Long Kesh. It may be that the Government feel that with the military forces at their command, with the weaponry available to them, they will be able to suppress any riot that may take place in that internment camp. They succeeded yesterday, but they may not succeed tomorrow. Incidentally, when visitors come to see their relatives in Long Kesh they are subjected to most humiliating searches before they are allowed to contact their relatives.
I have said that I hold no brief for men of violence. Throughout this campaign of violence I have condemned the men of violence—men not only in the IRA but in all other organisations Northern Ireland.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), said that during the elections for the Assembly the people in Northern Ireland largely ignored the internees. That is not right, because the internees were not ignored during the campaign for election to the Assembly. The internees by their own efforts made certain that they would not be ignored. Every morning in the local Press there were a dozen advertisements exhorting those who supported internees to spoil their ballot papers in the Assembly election. The SDLP did not ignore the internees, but we said that while the campaign of violence continued in Northern Ireland it would be extremely

difficult to advocate the release of the internees.

Mr. McNamara: Perhaps I should rephrase the words I used. What I was trying to point out was that, where internment itself was being sought to be made a particular issue by a particular group, it was ignored in looking for greater peace in the Northern Ireland community.

Mr. Fitt: I am glad that my hon. Friend has explained his remarks. I accept his explanation. I took him to be saying that there were those in Northern Ireland who had ignored the internees. Though I oppose the campaign of violence and those engaged in it, at no time will I ignore the plight of the interness until the last of them has been released from incarceration in Long Kesh.
In the course of an intervention in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman), the hon. Member for Belfast, East, said that people appeared on television advocating violence and that they were not interned. All I say to the hon. Gentleman is that anyone from Northern Ireland who advocates violence in the Press or on television will most certainly be wanted by the security forces—

Mr. McMaster: I did not say that people appeared on television advocating violence. I said that people appeared on television professing to be leaders of the IRA or members of the Provisional IRA and were putting forward Republican views, and that their actions contributed to the prolongation of the trouble in Northern Ireland.
The hon. Gentleman also spoke of condemning the men of violence. Of course I condemn the men of violence, both of the IRA and of the other side in Northern Ireland. Like the hon. Gentleman. I hold no brief for men of violence on whichever side they may be. However. I remind the hon. Gentlemen that in practically every case where a member of the security forces has been killed, the Provisional IRA has admitted responsibility.

Mr. Fitt: I do not think that it is possible to qualify one's rejection of violence. I have heard the hon. Member for Belfast, East and some of his colleagues say that the violence now emanating from the Protestant majority community was an


understandable reaction to what they had been subjected to by the activities of the IRA. Whatever the IRA has done since the campaign of violence began and however heinous its crimes, nothing can justify the callous and brutal murder of Senator Paddy Wilson last week, and I have no doubt that that was committed by Protestant extremists.
One cannot qualify one's rejection of violence. If there are violent men in any of the communities in Northern Ireland they must be condemned unequivocally.
I return to what I was saying about people's appearances on television. I thought for one moment that I was about to find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Belfast, East. However, I repeat that anyone who has advocated violence in Northern Ireland in the Press or on television most certainly will be on the wanted list of the security forces. Anyone appearing on another channel broadcasting from the Republic cannot be controlled by me or anyone else here or in Northern Ireland. But I agree with the hon. Member for Belfast, East that men who advocate violence, from whichever community they come, should not be given the facilities of the Press or television to preach their evil gospel which has brought such tragedy to Northern Ireland.
I believe that internment has brought with it total disaster to Northern Ireland. The men who are interned have families outside. For each man interned, it has antagonised his immediate family and perhaps other people in his neighbourhood. There are young boys interned who are now 17, 18 and 19 years of age. When the troubles began in 1968 they were only 12, 13 or 14. Internment is not the answer to the problem.
I agree that internment can be ended only by political action. I say here as I have said throughout Northern Ireland—I believe that the Assembly election has given me a further mandate to say so—that those who continue the campaign of violence are keeping internment in being in Northern Ireland. Unless and until they desist from their activities the gates of Long Kesh will remain closed. I want to see every single internee released from Long Kesh as speedily as possible. I shall do everything I can in a political sense to bring about an end to intern-

ment. To me, internment is abhorrent in principle. I believe it is abhorrent to the majority of people in this House and to the majority in Ireland.
As such, I could not support any attempt in the House to retain detention. I shall vote against the measure on Third Reading.

Mr. van Straubenzee: There has been one useful clarification at the start of this interesting debate. I thought it right to make clear the effect of the amendments as the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) was good enough to say, when we were discussing this matter at some depth in Committee, that he would not and did not seek to argue that internment should be ended tomorrow. Indeed, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) re-emphasised that. Therefore, we have reached agreement that if this amendment were to be carried—it will come as no surprise to the House to know that I shall advise against so doing—there would have to be inserted some kind of interim procedure because it is not the view of the official Opposition, and certainly not of the Government, that all those at present in detention—I am talking about detention, as distinguished from internment—would still have to be restrained.
In that connection I point to the provision in the schedule by which the cases of those detained will now, if the House so agrees, come under regular scrutiny by someone who is not a Minister.
As one who has to play a very close rôle in all this—a distasteful rôle, as I have never disguished from the House—I personally attach great importance to the fact that that review procedure will be by someone other than a Minister.
I hope that I am doing appropriate justice to the cogently argued remarks of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North when I say that he rests his case, first, upon the proposition that sufficient changes in the administration of justice are contained in Part I of the Bill to make detention unnecessary. I hope that I fairly summarise his remarks.
I would gently chide the hon. Member with the fact that, if he tells me that I am trying to have both cherries, he and his hon. Friends have sought by their


votes to deny either cherry to me. They sought to prevent Clause 2 from ever appearing in the Bill. No one has ever said for a moment that the proposals in Part I are at this moment sufficient on their own to deal with terrorists. The Diplock Report made it clear that the proposals, which now form Part I, could not be expected to deal effectively with terrorism.
The point of the proposals in Part I is to strengthen the administration of justice. We need not go back over that discussion but the proposals would increase the measure's capability to deal with terrorists. I hope that that time is not long delayed. I have said repeatedly that in their strengthed form the courts may be able to deal on their awn with terrorists, although the Diplock Report made it clear that that time had not arrived.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. McNamara: Will the Minister please look at the terms of reference given by the Government to the Diplock Commission? They were specifically to replace internment. We have not replaced internment and we have diluted the course of justice.

Mr. van Straubenzee: No, but I have said to the hon. Member before that I am satisfied that the make-up of the commission was such that, if it had wanted to make some alternative, totally new proposal, it would certainly not have been inhibited from so doing. What it did when it discussed the minimium requirements of a judicial process in Chapter 4 was to make some very swingeing comments upon the present situation in Northern Ireland.
In Paragraphs 15 and 16, the Commission said:
The minimum requirements are based upon the assumption that witnesses to a crime will be able to give evidence in a court of law without risk to their lives, their families or their property. Unless the State can ensure their safety, then it would be unreasonable to expect them to testify voluntarily and morally wrong to try to compel them to do so.
This assumption, basic to the very functioning of courts of law, cannot be made today in Northern Ireland as respects most of those who would be able, if they dared, to give evidence in court on the trial of offences committed by members of terrorist organisations.

The reason why they cannot is unfortunately extremely simple. A judicial system like that described is not at present capable of operating in Northern Ireland. The succeeding paragraphs of the report make the reason devastatingly clear.
The argument briefly is this. Terrorism has had such a fearful effect on the willingness of potential witnesses to give evidence in court that many of the terrorists themselves cannot be brought to justice in the courts. The only way to remove these effects of terrorism on potential witnesses is to remove the terrorists themselves, especially those who plan and organise.
No changes in the administration of justice, as the argument has it, would enable this to be done. After all, the commission examined a number of possibilities. Therefore, an extra judicial process is necessary.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: Of course we all know that the Diplock Commission concluded that both were required, and the Government have accepted that. But the Minister of State did not deal with the point that my hon. Friend was putting to him and which I have put myself on innumerable occasions tonight and in Committee: that it is quite evident from the terms of reference given to the Commission that, when the Government composed them, they thought, on the evidence known to them at the time, that it was possible to have one or The other. Will the Minister confirm that this was the Government's thinking on the evidence then known to them when they asked the commission to make its report?

Mr. van Straubenzee: The Government on this matter had an open mind, in the sense that they had asked these distinguished men—not one, but several distinguished men—to inquire what arrangements could be made in connection with the
administration of justice … to deal more effectively with terrorist organisations".
It is true that the terms of reference say:
otherwise than by internment by the Executive",
and it is an underscoring of proposals which had, by the time the report was published, been put before the House that Diplock comes down in favour of.
It is not easy for any hon. Member, wherever he sits or however strongly he feels—I would say to the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) that he is not the only one who feels strongly about these matters—faced with the evidence of men who certainly secure the admiration of us all, to go against the evidence of witnesses in a report of that kind. But it is my personal hope, and the whole of this Bill is based upon this hope of progression, that increasingly people's confidence in the effectiveness of the courts will return and their fear of intimidation diminish, so that the need for an extra-judicial system can eventually be removed.
It is sometimes said—I have heard it said both by the hon. Member for Ardwick and in part by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt)—that the history of what they will call internment, the Special Powers Act, is such and it arouses such passionate feelings in Northern Ireland that no extra-judicial system, such as the one we now have, is desirable. Sometimes that is put as a purely moral argument. Sometimes it is put the other way round. As the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick put it, it is a pragmatic argument.
It is perfectly true, and I accept without question, that an extra-judicial process involves derogation from the normally accepted principles of the judicial process, and by definition that is true. We have in the past accepted that in times of grave emergency such derogations are justified. No one welcomed them then and no one welcomes them now. Incidentally, the principle is well recognised in the European Convention of Human Rights. But the hon. Gentleman would also put the more pragmatic argument that nobody has really tried to do away with internment and to see—if I do not put his argument unfairly—the resulting beneficial effect.

Mr. Kaufman: There is no reason why the hon. Gentleman should not answer an argument, even if it is not mine, but my argument was not that we should do away with internment and see the beneficial result. I do not think there will be any beneficial result if internment is abolished. I believe terrorism will go on, with or without internment. But what I do believe is that Ireland cannot be held without internment and I would rather

not hold Ireland than go on with internment.

Mr. van Straubenzee: It is a matter of judgment whether there would or would not be a lowering of violence if detention were done away with. We have something by which to test it, because the hon. Gentleman will recall that at one time my right hon. Friend released quite a substantial number of internees, and I do not think history can show us that that had any resultant effect.
Another thing I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that it is a little hard to lambast us in connection with this Bill and say, to use his phrase, "You can never hold down Northern Ireland". In a week which has seen a major Bill with constructive sides to the policy embedded in it—that must be important in terms of doing the very thing the hon. Gentleman wants, and he is right, to remove the terrorists from the backers they have in the population; when we have had successful local government elections; when district councils are once again about to take up their functions and those district councils are electing their representatives to the area boards; when we have just had proper, democratic elections observed by hon. Members from both sides of this House, and when there are now elected representatives of an Assembly.
All these are pluses in the situation, and in a week which has seen such demonstrable evidence of this positive side of this Government's work I feel it is a little hard merely to criticise this particular schedule as though it stood entirely on its own. One last word to the hon. Gentleman: if he thinks the very large numbers of men and women in this operation in Northern Ireland today are motivated by political or religious beliefs of the conventional kind, if he really thinks that what motivates them is a deep belief in Catholicism or Protestantism as the case may be, he is making a very big mistake; and, leaving aside altogether the blood bath in Northern Ireland which his own policy would produce—

Mr. Kaufman: rose—

Mr. van Straubenzee: The hon. Gentleman was saying precisely that we should leave the Northern Ireland situation to be sorted out by the people of


Northern Ireland themselves. He put this in an Irish dimension, and if he believes that thereafter his constituents in Ardwick will live in peace, I assure him he makes a very big mistake. I observed in the remarks of the Prime Minister of the Republic on Monday this week a very acute awareness of precisely this matter.
I must make this point because so often there has been mention in this discussion of the word "internment". I am not going to look back at what was operating under the former internment procedures. I have constantly said, and my right hon. Friend has constantly begged the House to see, that, in the siuation we have in Northern Ireland today there is precious little to be gained by looking back, and that all of us, from whatever point of view we approach it, should be seeking to look forward. I am, however, entitled to say that the procedures in this schedule which are substantially the procedures in the Detention of Terrorists Order, have very important distinctions indeed from internment without trial. Let me just set them out in the briefest terms.
First, no one can be detained for more than 28th days unless his case is referred to a commissioner. Under the old system there was no such time limit. Second, a detention order can be made only by an independent, legally qualified and experienced commissioner, and he has to be satisfied not only that the person is involved in terrorism but that his detention is necessary for the protection of the public.

Mrs. Bernadette McAliskey (Mid-Ulster): Will the hon. Gentleman allow me?

Mr. van Straubenzee: Just let me finish setting out these five points and then I will give way.
A person appearing before a commissioner has to be given as much of the evidence against him as security allows and may give evidence himself. The old system had no independent commissioners, detention was by order of the Executive. There was no requirement of a hearing of a case against a person, nor such a definition of what was to justify detention.
I hope that hon. Members on both sides will understand how distasteful it is for an hon. Member who temporarily holds my job and who was brought up in the tradition we all share to sign an order removing even for 28 days the freedom of a person; but how infinitely more unattractive, how repellant, it would be to have to take the executive act of removing freedom from a person without any hearing before a commissioner. I am just outlining the differences so that the House may see them in full.
Third, there is an appeal to an independent appeal tribunal. The old system had no such appeal procedure. Fourth, under this Bill and this schedule, which I hope the House will agree to, it is proposed that the cases of detainees should be reviewed at fixed intervals. There was no such requirement under the internment procedures. Fifth, and perhaps most important as we debate it on the Floor of the House, it is proposed in this Bill and schedule that so long as it is in force the whole system of detention shall be reviewed by Parliament at least annually; in other words, positively the Government of the day must come before the House. There is no such provision of any kind of that sort in the Special Powers Act.
These are five differences, and I said that when I had set them out I would give way to the hon. Lady.

Mrs. McAliskey: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I am quite sure that he will accept that, while he may enunciate these differences, they will seem rather technical to a person inside Long Kesh, interned or detained. The question I wanted to raise was on the reference to an independent commissioner or tribunal within 28 days. There is a great deal of misunderstanding on this point. It should be clarified. When he says "within 28 days" the hon. Gentleman does not mean that the case will be heard inside that period, that a person will not be detained without a hearing for 28 days, but that within that 28 days the person will be notified that there will be a hearing. The hearing may not take place, as it has not in the past taken place, for weeks—sometimes for many months—after the original reference to the 28-day period.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,

That the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Hawkins.]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. van Straubenzee: The procedure that the hon. Lady outlined is perfectly correct. But in Committee I was able to show that cases are heard by the commissioners at short intervals after they are referred by the chief constable. What the hon. Lady must understand, however, is that in the cases that I have examined—I have looked at them very closely—where there has been delay, overwhelmingly this has been delay at the request of the detainee.
Particularly was this recently the case with Protestant detainees. I am not questioning their right to do so, but they wanted, perhaps, some different form of representation or needed further evidence to bring in their defence. It was the commissioners who granted an adjournment. This in itself shows how the procedure works.

Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman enumerated with some pride the five differences between the old practice and the practice that will subsist when the Bill is enacted. But would he agree that even these improved and modified practices, as he regards them, would be totally unacceptable in his county of Berkshire, although they will take place in Belfast? Is there not something degrading in a British Government having to carry on policies against people in the United Kingdom which the members of that Government would not carry out in their constituencies?

Mr. van Straubenzee: I did it with no pride. No one will accuse me of being proud to have to bring before the House, or to have to do my duty to operate, a procedure such as this in part of the United Kingdom. It is not mercifully—

I say this devoutly—possible to write of the county of Berkshire, nor the great city of Manchester, that the assumption of the basic requirements of a judicial process in Berkshire or in Manchester cannot be made today as respects most of those who would be able, if they dared, to give evidence in court on the trial 'of offences committed by members of terrorist organisations.
That is the short answer to the hon. Gentleman. I do not mean this unkindly, but if he would accept invitations more frequently to come to see for himself the situation in Northern Ireland, or if he had been present earlier to hear, on a related point, the way in which juries are interfered with in Northern Ireland—

Mr. Kaufman: indicated dissent.

Mr. van Straubenzee: The hon. Gentleman is accepting all this but is not accepting what flows from it. What flows from it is that in present circumstances an extra-judicial process is necessary.
I am simply saying that both sides of the House accept our bona fides and those of other hon. Members, and we all want to bring terrorism to an end. But I must put it all to all hon. Members who have views different from my own that it is not surely acceptable in present conditions that because of the intimidation of witnesses, which, alas, is a feature of the present day in Northern Ireland, men should go free who clearly ought to come up before the full force of the law. I profoundly hope that in due time—I trust that it will not be very long—it will be possible for a Government, of whichever party, to come to the House not seeking to renew Schedule 1 and its powers. That will be a very great day. I should like to think that I shall be associated with it. But until that day comes I must advise the House, in the clearest terms, that the powers contained in the schedule are necessary for law and order in Northern Ireland.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 17

SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS

Mr. Peter Archer: I beg to move Amendment No. 17, in page 10, line 10, leave out Clause 17.
As when this matter was discussed in Committee, I suspect that the debate will be dominated by the clock. It is a great misfortune that matters of such consequence for men and women should receive such an abbreviated discussion as may well prove to be necessary. I believe that the amendment merits a substantial examination but, happily, I can move it briefly because I believe that the instincts of the House will be in favour of the amendment.
In Clause 17 each subsection outdoes its predecessor in the startling nature of the powers which the Government seek. When it was first proposed to erode the jury system, it was done, as the Government spokesman said, with great reluctance and only because that was preferable to the alternatives. That first proposal seemed as so often to innoculate us against similar scruples later, so that we became more ready to swallow an increasing number of inroads upon what are normally considered essential constitutional safeguards.
If there is a judge and no jury, it becomes possible to make inroads upon the rules of evidence; and so when we reach this clause, which deals with supplementary provisions, we have almost reached the stage when it is no longer a question whether we are to swallow a gnat or a camel. Once the meal has begun the Government seem ready to gobble up every creature within sight from a mouse to an elephant.
I invite the House to look at the provisions of the clause. Subsection (1) provides:
Any member of Her Majesty's forces on duty"—
not selected people of high rank, not people trained to exercise these powers, not people authorised in some special way, but
Any member of Her Majesty's forces on duty or any constable"—

again, not a member of the police force of a particular rank, but
any constable may enter premises".
In case "premises" is not wide enough it then says
or any other place—
(a) if he considers it necessary to do so in the course of operations for the preservation of peace …".
Again, there is no appeal, no question whether the court is persuaded that it is necessary, but simply that he considers it necessary. All that would be required, as I understand it, is that the court should be satisfied that he had arrived at that conclusion, and no doubt arrived at it in good faith.
It continues, as if that were not wide enough:
(b) if authorised to do so by or on behalf of the Secretary of State
he can do it whether he considers it necessary or not.
If we ask how the Secretary of State is to exercise this very wide power of authorising these inroads, we turn to subsection (5), and we find that he may do so in virtually any way that appeals to him, either by giving a blanket authorisation or by authorising some specific class of action; or he may authorise a specific person or "all persons by whom" these powers
are capable of being exercised".
The Secretary of State may say that anybody may do it.
When we were discussing these matters in Committee my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) invited information as to how it was proposed that the authorisation should be given. Would it be given by the Secretary of State personally after he had perused the file and directed his mind to the question? We were told that no undertaking could be given as to how the authorisation would be exercised, or at what level. It might be exercised by the Secretary of State, by a Minister of State, or by a senior civil servant. For all we know to the contrary, it might be exercised by a clerk in the Department. So there is no limit to the powers which the Government are taking to themselves.
Under subsection (2) any member of Her Majesty's Forces or any constable. or any other person, if the Secretary of


State chooses to authorise that other person, may take possession of any land or property, may place buildings or other structures in a state of defence, or may detain any property or cause it to be destroyed or moved. He may stop a car in which you, Mr. Speaker, or I or any hon. Member is driving home late at night and destroy it. Just in case anything has been accidentally omitted, we come to paragraph (d), under which he may do any other act interfering with any public right or with any private rights of property. So in case there is any power which he has forgotten to ask for he includes this blanket provision at the end.
Under subsection (3) any member of Her Majesty's Forces, any constable or any person whom the Secretary of State authorises may wholly or partly close a highway or interfere with a highway or the use of a highway—which presumably means they may interfere with an individual's use of the highway—may prohibit or restrict the exercise of any right of way or, just in case we had forgotten, the use of any waterway.
Under subsection (4) when the Secretary of State, or anyone whom he has authorised to do any of these things, is exercising his powers, woe betide anyone who interferes with him. When we discussed these matters in Committee the Minister of State assured us that it was distasteful to him to ask for powers so wide. He thought he needed them but he offered to consider the possibility of imposing some limits, at least on subsection (2)(c)—the removal of property—so that if it became necessary to take someone's car away to examine it there would at least be some restriction on the distance it could be removed. It could not then be unnecessarily removed 50 miles away. I have no doubt that having said he would consider it he has done so, but it appears he has been unable to help.

Mr. van Straubenzee: Has the hon. and learned Gentleman perhaps overlooked Amendment No. 19?

Mr. Archer: Yes, for the moment I had. To an extent it helps but it does not go as far as the consideration for which we asked. It obviously goes as far as the Minister feels able, but it does not meet the specific example I quoted

both in Committee and a few moments ago.
There is no need to argue that these powers far exceed the normal rights of a Government over their subjects. We have demonstrated more than once that we recognise the problems the Government are seeking to meet. On this, however, there has been singularly little argument to justify the promotion of such powers. There has been no evidence that either the forces or the police have asked for powers so wide. So far as I recollect there have been no recommendations from the Diplock Committee and no evidence to establish the need for such powers, so I do not think the Minister is in a position to quote the good book on that one.
On what I might call the general principles, in an article in the July issue of the Criminal Law Review, Professor Twining sets out certain constitutional principles which are axiomatic in the application of emergency legislation, one of which is the "minimum derogation principle", the principle that when it is necessary to derogate from constitutional safeguards the derogation should be to the minimum extent necessitated by the exigencies of the situation. One has the impression that in claiming these powers the Government have adopted the maximalist approach. One day someone will look at the Bill and wonder how the House could have conferred such wide powers with so little discussion.
10.15 p.m.
I do not expect to be able to convince the Minister. I cannot adduce any argument that we have not adduced already, and I do not believe that the case benefits from repetition. I suspect that, without my convincing the hon. Gentleman, words alone will not be sufficient to protect the people of Northern Ireland from the clause. But I ask the hon. Gentleman to address his mind to the enormity of the powers which he is arrogating to himself, to the constitutional principles that we all learnt at our mother's knee, and to the need to justify—[Interruption.) The hon. Gentleman seems surprised, but surely both sides have accepted throughout the debates that the Government are making substantial inroads upon principles which in any other situation would have been regarded by us all as axiomatic.
In those circumstances, it behoves the Government to justify the powers they are taking, in, on the face of it, so cavalier a manner.

Mr. van Straubenzee: The hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer) will allow me a slightly wry smile over his saying that there has been singularly little argument on the clause. I make no complaint about it—it is what the Committee stage is all about—but we had amendments in Committee to delete in turn subsections (1) and (2), subsection 2(d) and subsection (5). I make no major point of it, but all the amendments were withdrawn, although in fairness I should add that the Opposition said in at least one case that they would want to examine the matter more fully. Therefore, those particularly interested in our affairs can see the justification I made for powers which I concede are very wide, far wider than we would wish powers to be in a normal situation. I hope that a future Government may well be able to ask not to retain them any longer than necessary.
The powers with which we are now dealing, and other powers, are tighter in drafting terms compared with those in the Special Powers Act. The important point is that they are under regular scrutiny by the House and are now exercised by a Secretary of State answerable in general and in detail to the House. He can be questioned about his actions.
It it true that in the present situation in Northern Ireland there are, regrettably, situations—such as the setting up of an Army post on private land, the provisions of one military operation or another—for which it is necessary to provide by law. That, briefly, is why the clause remains in the Bill. My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General will deal with the detailed point in subsection (4), and I shall not trespass on that matter.
If I do not answer the hon. and learned Gentleman in detail, it is for precisely the reason he gave in opening. Neither of us underestimates the importance of the clause. We both understand that in present circumstances, at this precise moment, it is probably to the convenience of all hon. Members that we put our arguments concisely.
I can only repeat what I said in Committee, just as the hon. and learned Gentleman can only repeat what he said. In present circumstances, with the safeguards written into the Bill, it is possible to justify the general powers of entry, of interference with rights of property and with highways, subject also to the overwhelming consideration of their being exercised by a Secretary of State answerable to the House. It is on those lines that I justify them.

Amendment negatived.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move Amendment No. 18, in page 10, line 38, after 'authority', insert
'or reasonable excuse (the proof of which lies on him).'.
The amendment relates to what has already been forecast by my hon. Friend the Minister of State. The matter was debated in Committee. It was doubtful what would be the position of somebody who was interfering with any apparatus, equipment or other thing used in connection with the exercise of powers—for example, if the security forces in a moment of emergency had had to put across a road a haycart, motor car or something of that sort. If they were then hiding behind a hedge and a perfectly responsible motorist came along and, finding his way blocked, moved the vehicle in order to get home, the question was raised whether the motorist would be sufficiently protected. In order that there should be no doubt about his position the amendment adds after "authority" the following words:
or reasonable excuse (the proof of which lies on him) …".
That protects the innocent person who without in any way intending to interfere with the security forces seeks to move something because he does not realise that there is any security implication.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 18

GENERAL POWERS OF ENTRY AND INTERFERENCE WITH RIGHTS OF PROPERTY AND WITH HIGHWAYS.

Mr. van Straubenzee: I beg to move Amendment No. 19, in page 11, line 19 leave out 'includes' and insert:
'or vessel shall, in the case of a vehicle or vessel which cannot be conveniently or


thoroughly searched at the place where it is, include'.
The amendment is designed to meet what I undertook to consider in Committee—namely, the situation of a vehicle which might perhaps in an irritating way be moved an unnecessarily long distance from where it was found so that it might be searched. That is how we came to arrive at the wording, which does not limit the distance at which a vehicle or a vessel might be taken.
I inquired whether we could find some geographical limit. I think that Opposition hon. Members will realise that that was impossible from a drafting point of view. The amendment requires the security forces to consider whether they could conveniently and thoroughly search the vehicle or vessel where it is. Only if they cannot make such a search will they be allowed to move it. That indicates a certain limitation which I hope is helpful. The amendment was tabled in that spirit.
I have taken the opportunity to include vessels. There could be an occasion when a vessel would be used—for example, at a busy pier at which there might be a lot of people. It would be unfortunate if the power to move a vessel was not included. I hope that that provision is helpful. It is designed to be helpful.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. van Straubenzee: I beg to move Amendment No. 20, in page 11, line 31, at end insert:
'(6A) A member of Her Majesty's Forces exercising any power conferred by this Part of this Act when he is not in uniform shall, if so requested by any person at or about the time of exercising that power, produce to that person documentary evidence that he is such a member.'.
This also has been tabled by the Government in response to undertakings in Committee. We felt that legitimate anxieties were expressed that when these powers were exercised by a member of Her Majesty's forces not in uniform it would be reasonable that if so requested he should produce documentary evidence that he was such a member of the forces.
I make it clear again that I do not expect that these powers will be exercised by members of Her Majesty's forces other than in uniform, except in very exceptional circumstances. I want

to make that clear because it is only desirable that they should be used by members of Her Majesty's forces in uniform. Nevertheless, the anxiety expressed in Committee was valid, and I have tabled the amendment in order to meet my obligations. I hope that it may be of assistance.

Mrs. McAliskey: If the amendment applies to members of the Armed Forces out of uniform, will it also apply to members of the MRF, not on duty and out of uniform, opening fire on a bus queue using Thompson sub-machine guns?

Mr. S. C. Silkin: The amendment requires a comment from us because in Committee we stressed the very great importance of ensuring, in the circumstances which exist in Northern Ireland, that people who were not wearing a distinctive form of dress—such as a member of the Armed Forces in uniform, or a constable—who purported to exercise some of these very wide-ranging powers might very well, unless they were able and required to produce the authority in the form of documentary evidence that they were members of the forces, so far from acting as a restraining influence upon the situation of potential violence, actually incite violence. It is welcome that the Government have accepted this principle. We regard it as a very important improvement to the Bill, notwithstanding the hon. Gentleman's statement that it would be rare—which we welcome—that a member of Her Majesty's forces not in uniform would exercise these powers.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 24

SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS FOR PRESERVING THE PEACE, ETC.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: I beg to move Amendment No. 21, in page 14, line 31, leave out subsection (1).
This subsection has already earned the title of the "Henry VIII subsection". Despite the extreme width of the provisions of the Bill up to this point, the subsection appears to give the Secretary of State power to do virtually everything he likes. We rather wondered why the rest of the Bill was necessary at all and


why we were not simply presented with subsection (1) of Clause 24, subject, I accept, to the provisions of Clause 29, under which authority has to be given to the Secretary of State.
But, even allowing for the provisions of Clause 29, the Secretary of State is still in a position to exercise absolute power, though for perhaps a limited period of time. Those with whom I have had the opportunity to speak since the Committee stage who are well versed in these matters tell me that they have never seen a Bill or an Act which gives such wide-ranging powers as these, enabling a Minister to do almost anything he wants to do. We shall be interested to know whether there are precedents and what they are. We shall also be interested to know, in any event, what justification there is, after everything we have been discussing so far, for this long-stop, this "Henry VIII" power to be given to the Secretary of State.
Everything that the Minister has said about his distaste for having to exercise powers of this kind applies with quadruple force to the powers given by this subsection. We would like to know what the Government envisage as the use to which they might put this power so as to give, by regulations, powers additional to what is already in the Bill for the preservation of peace or the maintenance of order.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. van Straubenzee: Once again this is, as the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) will agree, a matter that we considered with great care in Committee. I make no complaint that we have returned to the point again. The general approach in the drafting of the Bill, unlike that in the Special Powers Act, has been to put as much as possible in the clauses. The only truly regulatory matters are contained in Schedule 3, which, I take it, does not arouse the dissatisfaction of the Opposition since there are no amendments tabled to it. This is almost exactly the opposite approach to that of the Special Powers Act.
It would be nice to think, and I would dearly like to, that Schedule 3 regulations contained all that might be necessary in

dealing with the situation at present facing us in Northern Ireland. Quite shortly, that is not an assurance which it is possible to make, which is why these additional powers are necessary in our judgment.
Since we are apparently talking about Henry VIII, it is right to say that these are powers which can only be exercised by the Secretary of State upon an affirmative resolution. I do not think that Henry VIII ever had to work like that. He certainly did not have to get Anne Boleyn beheaded by affirmative resolution. It might have been useful for the House of Commons if he had. I think he would doubtless have used the emergency procedure so that the House could not act once the head was off.
The serious point is that, quite properly, what is not asked for, although it might appear so to those outside who follow our debates, is that the Secretary of State should have some powers vested in him alone. This is not so, and this makes it sharply distinguishable from the Special Powers Act, which is repealed if this Bill is approved. Those are the arguments for the preservation of Clause 24(1).

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: My hon. Friend made a little merry with Henry VIII. Does not he think that the powers of the Secretary of State, reinforced by the Patronage Secretary and the Government Whips, exceed so far as this House is concerned the powers possessed by Henry VIII, Cromwell, Strafford, or any who have administered or attempted to administer Ireland or part of it?

Mr. van Straubenzee: We must not carry this argument too far. To take an episode which interests my hon. Friend and me, surely the powers of Henry VIII to expropriate the monasteries were considerably more than the powers the Government possess? The Government would certainly have to get the necessary authority from the House.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: If I may speak with the leave of the House I should like to say that the Minister of State has made our point for us. It certainly might not have been considered a matter very much to the advantage of Anne Boleyn if, after


her beheading, the regulations under which she was beheaded had been annulled.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 30

COMMENCEMENT, DURATION, EXPIRY AND REVIVAL OF PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT

Amendment made: No. 22, in page 18, line 12, leave out from 'offence to end of line 13.—[Mr. van Straubenzee.]

Schedule 1

DETENTION OF TERRORISTS

Mr. van Straubenzee: I beg to move Amendment No. 24, in page 24, line 11, leave out from 'shall' to 'subject' in line 12.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are taking Government Amendment No. 25.

Mr. van Straubenzee: These are amendments to the schedule which I undertook in Committee to examine to enable the attendance of the detainee at the tribunal hearing his appeal.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 25, in page 24. line 14, leave out from 'entitled' to end of line 15 and insert
'to be present unless the Tribunal direct his removal on the grounds of his disorderly conduct'.—[Mr. van Straubenzee.]

Mr. McNamara: I beg to move Amendment No. 26, in page 24, line 26, at end insert:
'(34A) Upon any question of law arising out of the decision of the Tribunal an appeal shall lie upon a case stated by the Tribunal to the High Court of Northern Ireland'.
In moving this amendment I am returning to a short but important debate in Committee when we discussed a similar amendment. When the Minister of State was extolling to us the virtues of detention as opposed to internment he mentioned the many advantages to the detainee of the new system compared with the disadvantageous position of the internee. One important consideration which he omitted was that there was no appeal from what is basically an executive decision to take away a man's liberty, whether he be a detainee or an internee. The system of detention, no matter how it is disguised, is a system

of removing a man's liberty by executive action.
Evidence comes before a Minister. He decides—I am sure with much heart-searching and examination of his conscience—to sign the interim custody order. The order justifies the incarceration of a man for 28 days. Evidence is produced before a commissioner, as to the origin of which he may not always be informed, to justify the imprisonment of the detainee. For permanent detention, an order is made there and then with appeal to a tribunal, similar limitations being placed upon the persons comprising the tribunal as to the amount of evidence they may be allowed to see for security reasons.
We have gone along with the Government so far. They have made their decision. We do not like it because we feel that it should never have been made in the first place. They say they have to have people behind bars, but for security reasons they cannot reveal their source of evidence or the names of the witnesses. We accept that for the sake of argument, but there goes one of the formal grounds of appeal.
We also go so far with the Government as to say that there might be an appeal on mixed law and fact. There might be security grounds for not allowing an appeal in those circumstances, but on the question of pure law we feel there should be some way of bringing this extra judicial process, as the Minister of State calls it, into the normal mainstream of the law, and that it should be possible for some method of appeal to be made without going into the cumbersome procedures and technical rules of prerogative rights, or orders as they now are.
We felt that we had taken the Solicitor-General with us in Committee. When the amendment was moved he rose to examine the difficulties behind our suggestion. There was a long exchange on this matter between him and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin), and eventually we withdrew our amendment because we felt that our point had been conceded. We felt that we had been given an undertaking by the Solicitor-General.
Therefore, this amendment was tabled at a very late stage. We waited and waited for the Government to give some indication of their intentions in this very


important matter. They did not table an amendment, and so we have done so. This is of the utmost importance, and the Government indicated to the Committee that they would positively introduce an amendment on these lines.
I accept that the Solicitor-General did not give an explicit undertaking, but he should explain why no suitable amendment has been tabled, especially when he had himself argued so powerfully for the principle of our amendment.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. McMaster: The Minister earlier set out the advantages of the procedure adopted under the Bill over the procedure in the Emergency Powers Act. My memory of it is that some procedure was adopted for reviewing the internment orders that had been made and that these were reviewed by the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland. Could my hon. and learned Friend bring us up to date? Is it not true that before the prorogation of Stormont decisions with regard to internment had been reviewed, and that there had been a procedure for their review?

The Solicitor-General: The strictures addressed to me by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) are slightly harsh. It is right that I should admit that I was almost thinking aloud in the debate upon the Opposition amendment in Committee. It is very difficult to work from the copies of the transcript that we have of what happened on that occasion, but my recollection is that the amendment was one of a number that I was dealing with. It is true that, in discussing them, I almost talked myself not into the idea that it should go necessarily to the Northern Ireland court but into the idea that there should be some form of pre-1906 Crown Cases Reserved position, whereby one would not have an appeal in the ordinary sense but would seek the opinion of some court that could advise the court in question.
In view of the way in which it has been put, perhaps I should remind the House that I started by using the words—I am referring to page 130 of our rather rough notes—
I say this off the cuff, without having considered it with anybody else.

That indeed was the fact. A little later I said:
I do not want to make any commitment, but could I make this point clear? I would not like it to be thought that, in the ordinary 'case stated' procedure"—
to the Divisional Court in this country—
which goes much wider".
Two pages further on I said:
If the Committee would agree, as I have only just considered it, and without giving any sort of binding undertaking".
A few pages further on I said:
What I am seeking to do is merely to ask that I should be allowed to consider what in fact was the position pre-1906, when one had the Court for Crown Cases Reserved.
I ended by saying that I would like further time to consider the matter. It must be apparent that I was attracted by the idea, as I still am.
With any sort of court one always has to consider whether the buck ought to stop there, or whether, in certain restricted cases, a case should be further considered. But I have now had time to consider it and to consult, which I did not have when I was last discussing this matter.
Certain things are apparent. The Appeal Tribunal is a tribunal of great legal experience, presided over by one of the most eminent Lord Justices, now retired. In a sense—I say this in no way meaning to be derogatory of the Court of Appeal of Northern Ireland—if it went to the Northern Ireland Appeal Court, as suggested in the amendment, one would merely be substituting one three-judge court for another. To cover most of the occasions there are the prerogative orders, which are always available, so one would not need any form of supplementary appeal procedure, so far as certiorari prohibition or mandamus are concerned.
Equally, it is very important that the Northern Ireland courts—the High Court, Divisional Court or Court of Appeal—should be excluded from the detention procedure. That has been done throughout in order not to involve the Northern Irish courts in that.
Finally, one must ask this question. This is what has finally swung me against tabling an amendment on the lines that I had in mind or being able to advise the House to accept this amendment, which


is defective in a number of serious ways. What are the likely chances of the need for this ever arising?
One of the problems that would follow an amendment on the lines that I was discussing off the cuff in Committee on this amendment is that, whichever way one looks at it, we are establishing a precedent. The precedent is a spectre which terrifies most legislators, if not all. This is what has finally convinced me. When one is creating a precedent, and particularly a quite unusual one of this kind, not to the Privy Council, as one might have with the GMC or some-think of that kind, but to the House of Lords, with all the difficulties that would follow about whether the detainee should be allowed to attend and whether, if he were not represented or refused to be represented, he should be entitled to go and argue the point of law himself, and all the other problems, but principally the problem of creating a new appeal to the House of Lords, there have to be strong grounds to justify creating it. In creating an important precedent which can be pointed to on so many other occasions, which have nothing to do with Northern Ireland or detainees, by people who want to create a brand new form of appeal to the House of Lords, and not the sort of system under the 1833 Act to the Privy Council, there have to be very strong grounds to justify creating it.
I was forced back to looking at it and finding it impossible to see any circumstances in which what is attractive to all lawyers, an ultimate court of appeal, should ever arise.
That is why I gave the matter earnest consideration. I spent a lot of time considering it. That is why in the end the Government did not decide to move an amendment to consider it. That is why, accordingly, I find it impossible to advise the House to accept the amendment.

Mr. McNamara: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to make one or two brief points. We have rehearsed this argument previously. I should like to put a little idea into the Solicitor-General's mind.
What we have established by the detention of terrorists and Schedule 1 is a system which we all find abhorrent. We take away a man's liberty by incarcerat-

ing him for such time as the order remains in operation—subject, granted, to certain reviews—in a completely quasi-judicial or extra-judicial process. The House has decided that it wants to keep the system in that way, but surely it is right that we should try to bring it within the mainstream of the law regarding questions of law, legal interpretation, and powers of tribunals and commissions. The Solicitor-General has said "We will deprive a man of his liberty, yet we will not allow him have redress at law."
It is a bad argument for a lawyer to advance that he will not take a certain action because it will establish a precedent. After all, lawyers—like the House of Commons—live by precedent. This legislation is almost without precedent in the House. That is a precedent that the Solicitor-General should consider. He should recommend his right hon. Friends in another place to reconsider the Government's position on the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: No. 27, in page 26, line 10, leave out paragraph 40.—[Mr. van Straubenzee.]

Schedule 5

REPEALS

Amendment made: No. 28, in page 33. line 21, at end insert—

"S.I. 1972 No. 1632 (N.I. 15)
The Detention of Terrorists (Northern Ireland) Order 1972.
The whole Order".




[Mr. van Straubenzee.]

10.57 p.m.

Mr. van Straubenzee: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Bill falls into three distinct parts—the first dealing with the administration of justice, the second with what I have termed an extra-judicial process, and the third with other measures which are necessary in the emergency which faces us.
The first, and in some ways the most important, thing to be said about all these parts of the Bill is that, subject to the provisions of the Bill and to certain exceptions, they are subject to review by


the United Kingdom Parliament at intervals of not more than one year. This is a substantial advance.
As I have readily conceded throughout all stages of the Bill, many of the changes brought about by the Bill may fairly be described as fundamental changes in the administration of justice. They appeared in the Bill only after the recommendations of the distinguished persons who comprised the Diplock Commission.
It is true that the purpose of the changes in the administration of justice is to ensure that the guilty are convicted. I hope that the House will agree that this is necessary in any society if law and order are to be maintained. If the guilty are allowed to escape, law and order break down and the machinery of justice is brought into contempt. In current circumstances in Northern Ireland the changes need to be fairly drastic in nature, because intimidation already has a strong hold, but they are temporary changes, I trust, and—most important of all—I do not believe that the Bill will in any way increase the risk of the innocent being convicted.
I have made clear that I do not like the extra-judicial process of detention, but I believe it to be essential. Having accepted the need for it, I hope I can impress upon the House that the Government have attempted to build in as many safeguards as possible. The Bill extends the safeguards already provided in the Detention of Terrorists Order, which is the present legislative base for this action. The cases of detainees will now come up for automatic review by a commissioner, and anyone who appeals to the appeal tribunal will be entitled to be present at the hearing of his appeal.
Part III of the Bill provides the security forces with powers of arrest and search, and I have argued that these, too, are essential. It lists offences, and the need for this arises out of the special situation with which we are faced in Northern Ireland. No one will welcome the provisions. We would recognise them to be unacceptable in normal times, but it is beyond doubt that normal times do not exist in Northern Ireland. The Army and the RUC are dealing with some of the most difficult security problems which have ever occurred in these islands. Not only they but the great majority of

the people of Northern Ireland who want no part of violence—and the great majority want no part of it—need to be supported by these measures which are necessary for dealing with crime and disorder.
The Government are satisfied that the Bill contains the minimum powers which are necessary, and they are anxious that none of them should stay in effect for longer than is necessary. The House will find that as soon as the situation permits of any reduction in the number of these powers the Government have not closed their minds to what in Committee I described as the switching-off procedure. But we must look for some return to normality in order to enable us to take those steps.
We are debating, and I hope we shall agree to, the Third Reading of this Bill in the same week in which the House gave a Third Reading to the constitution Bill. I should like to think, but it is unrealistic, that the constitution Bill would of itself secure that return to normality which we all desire to see in Northern Ireland. To enable the constitution proposals to have a chance to work it is essential to stamp out terrorism. and that is the purpose of this Bill. If the constitutional proposals are to have a fair chance to work—and one of the hopes in Northern Ireland is that demonstrably the vast majority of people there want them to have a chance—the terrorists cannot be allowed to continue their campaign of terror. That is why we in this House are being invited to act. I say "we" advisedly because law and order are matters which this House decided earlier in the week in the constitution Bill should be reserved to this Parliament.
But if we are to accept these responsibilities we must meet our obligations, even though they are unpalatable. Some of them are unpalatable, but they are all clear and they are set out in the Bill, to which I invite the House to give a Third Reading.

11.4 p.m.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: It is not so long since we started out on this Bill, and the date and timing of our finish surprise me. I had thought we would go a lot longer, but that is the way of Bills. We have had long discussions quite rightly, and,


because I am in danger of repeating myself and because there are important matters afoot in Northern Ireland, I shall be brief.
As the Minister said, this is the week of the White Paper approach developing into the constitution Bill. The Government, know the support they have had in general for that approach. On the Second Reading of this Bill I said that, despite that, we would examine this Bill critically. That we have done. We have had very limited success with the Government. I have had information today from the Minister that I believe should be published about instructions to the RUC and the Army for dealing with young people. But, as important as that is, we have not achieved very much by our amendments and discussions in Committee.
Our criticisms do not ignore the realities of Northern Ireland. It is impossible for anyone who knows anything about Northern Ireland to ignore the facts of life there. Any Government have the right to deal with bombing and killing. No Government could sit back while that was happening. But they have the duty to keep within the rule of law. That is why the Opposition have felt that the Government would have done better to start on the basis of a Bill of Rights. An article in the Criminal Law Review states this point this week on page 408, where it says:
The creation and exercise of emergency powers should comply with international law.
It goes on to speak of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights. Derogation from these would have been the correct step.
Allowing the Government the right to act is not the same as agreeing to the methods they have suggested. We have made clear our criticisms. But we have just turned one of those corners that happen in Irish politics, which I imagine will prove to be a major corner, the elections of last week to the Assembly, whether successful or not, and we are to witness power sharing and all-Ireland institutions, whatever they might be.
Last Thursday, polling day, I took the opportunity to go into the Maze, Long Kesh, where there are about 1,200 people. Maybe in terms of what we are talking

about the number of political detainees, or people sentenced for crimes which they claim were committed in furtherance of their political aims, is nearer 1,100. There are many people in what is in effect a concentration camp in a part of the United Kingdom, for reasons that we all fully understand. They are still there, and the shooting and the killing are to continue. What we must find is the political means whereby they will end.
I spoke last week to the "leaders" in the various compounds. I had half an hour with Mr. Gusty Spence, and I spoke to Mr. McGuire, Mr. McKee and Mr. McCann, who was in one of the new compounds. For the rest of the day, as I visited polling booths, I remembered my visit. I know that the Government think about that kind of thing, and the Opposition, as the alternative Government, think about it. Long Kesh still remains and the shooting and the killing remain. While they go on, the political initiative to which we have all set our hands stands much more chance of not succeeding.
The matter we have been discussing will come before us again. It is easy to be wise after the event, but last week I could not help recalling that I said during the passage of the Immigration Bill that it contained grave deficiencies, and that we would come back to it again and again.
We in the United Kingdom still have to deal with the problem of security, which is wrapped up with political developments in Northern Ireland. My advice to my hon. Friends is that, dissatisfied as we are with the Bill, we should not vote against the Government. There is a grave emergency in Northern Ireland, and we must remember that there are real problems, which do not just arise out of the Bill.
The House will be discussing these matters again.

11.10 p.m.

Mr. McMaster: I do not wish to detain the House long at the end of a long Report stage but this is an important and fundamental Bill. It does something which gives no pleasure to myself and to my hon. Friends representing the Unionist side in this House. However, as the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr.


Merlyn Rees) said, we must look for a solution to the problems of Northern Ireland.
I do not know that I can go all the way with the hon. Gentleman. Unfortunately, he talks about a political solution ending the violence. That is seeking the impossible. The people who are behind the violence in Northern Ireland will accept only one solution and that is the solution which they themselves have pursued for 50 years—namely, the unification of the island of Ireland irrespective of the wishes of the majority in Northern Ireland.
As long as there is a small fanatical minority in Northern Ireland—and it is a small minority which does not by any means represent the entire Republican sector in Northern Ireland because the majority of the Republicans are prepared to pursue their policies without violence—violence will be pursued no matter what constitutional solution is suggested to them. We have lived with that for 50 years and we shall probably have to continue living with it.
We shall have to deal with that minority in the way which is required by the majority in Northern Ireland. The majority has a right to ask the authorities to ensure that law and order and the Queen's peace prevails in Northern Ireland. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister of State said that the prime aim of the Government is to establish law and order. That is the reason behind the introduction of the Bill.
I hope that the provisions will be as temporary as my hon. Friend stated. I regard tile statement of the hon. Member for Leeds, South as a little too optimistic. I am afraid that the solutions which some hon. Members are seeking are not realistic, if we consider the long history of Ireland and the troubles which we have had I support this measure as being a realistic and necessary attempt to deal with our security problem in Northern Ireland. It might be longer in operation than the period suggested by the hon. Member for Leeds, South.

11.13 p.m.

Mrs. McAliskey: I oppose the Bill on Third Reading. I have no doubt that in 1465 when a statute was passed by the

House of Commons forcing the people of Ireland to speak a language that they could not speak and did not understand, to wear clothing which was alien to them, and to adopt as their surnames names which they did not possess or understand, the majority of hon. Members did not like having to do so. I am sure that the majority of hon. Members felt that it was, to say the least of it, undemocratic. But 500 years later the present majority of hon. Members find it necessary to adopt a similar measure.
I am sure that the 1465 statute led to the present-day situation. There has been an almost endless list of legislation concerning Northern Ireland pass through the House. I shall name but a few measures. In 1495 an Act was passed against those stirring the Irish to make war. Between 1635 and 1639 there was an endless list of Settlement of Ireland Acts for repression and coercion. The Government of the day and the House of Commons then decided that the way to ensure a loyal and law-abiding population in Ireland was to encourage Protestant settlers—the Protestant stranger—to go to Northern Ireland so as to create artificially a majority of law-abiding and subservient citizens.
From there we went to 1797 with the Incitement to Disaffection Act and to the Unlawful Combinations Act of 1803. There followed others—the suspension of habeas corpus, the Apprehension of Offenders Act, the Suppression of Rebellion in Ireland Act, the Militia Act, the Ireland Act, endless emergency powers Acts and civil emergencies Acts. Now we stand in 1973, and we have the same arguments produced by Government and Opposition, that no one likes it, that everybody agrees that it is not democratic.
Everyone here will defend the right of an individual to trial by jury, the right to have the onus of proof on the prosecution and not on the defendant, the right of an individual not to have his property and land searched without warrant, the right not to be detained without trial.
What we are told, and I accept, is that we do not have normal times in Northern Ireland. What I object to is the wrong conclusion that is being drawn by the Government. The Government say, and I accept, that trial by jury in Northern


Ireland does not produce the desired effect—that is to say, trial by jury no longer secures the guilt of the guilty or the freedom of the innocent.
Therefore, something has gone wrong. I also accept that persons in this country would be willing to give evidence against suspected or accused persons but that in Northern Ireland that is not the case. I accept also that in some measure this is due to fear for their own personal safety. But I also accept what the Government do not—that also in some measure it is due—here we come to the crux of the problem—to a total alienation of the individual from the law of which he is part and the law he is expected to uphold.
When the Government, rightly, say that trial by jury no longer works in Northern Ireland, that the rules of evidence can no longer apply there, that the courts and the police cannot function as they do in a normal democracy, the conclusion is not that the Government must alter the democratic process; the conclusion is that the Government are unfit to govern in the circumstances.
Whether the Government like it or not, if it requires such a measure of force, such a measure of repression, such a derogation from the rights of liberty and the rights of individual freedom in order to secure, at the expense of imprisoning the innocent, the imprisonment of the guilty, the Government must accept that they are unfit to govern.
But it is not my function tonight to attempt to adduce any moral argument against this Bill. I do not attempt it because I believe it impossible to persuade either the Government or the Opposition to join me and whatever few individuals will stand with me in the "No" Lobby.
The point I want to put forward to the Government and the House—I do so without apology—is that, for all its repression, for all its coercion, for all its wangling of the law, this Bill will be as futile and as ineffective in producing the ends desired by the Government as any other of its ilk passed in this country.
The reason for this is, as hon. Members have continually said, political. The reason for it is not that the Irish nation has a peculiar habit every generation of breeding what the Government and the

House deign to call "terrorists". We have no greater a preponderance of a terrorist mentality among our people than this or any other country has. What we do have is a greater preponderance of problems in our country that the Government ultimately responsible for ruling us have for years and for decades refused to come to grips with. We have the same problem now as we had in 1495, when it was necessary to take our language, our tradition and our very names from us. The Government imagine that from time to time over the years they have had different Irish problems. They have not. They have had one and the same Irish problem.
Throughout our history, however, the Government of the day—the ruling class of this country—have refused to listen. They have refused to listen to the voice of reason. They have refused to listen to the voice of poverty and to the voice of hunger.
Throughout our decades, if we are left with a country that believes that when the ballot box does not work the bullet should be tried, let this House remember that terrorism was an art we learned from the British. It was the British who terrorised us into subjection, who terrorised us from one end of Ireland to the other, who terrorised us into a position where the non-political of Ireland say that the British understand terrorism.
Throughout their colonial history, the British Government have listened at the end of the day only to the voice of terrorism. How many respected African and other colonial leaders now wine and dine in this country when not so very many years or decades ago they, too, were denounced as the terrorists? They were the people who filled the internment and detention camps. Can the people of Ireland be blamed if they look around and say "If they are there today, we may well be in the same position tomorrow"?
I am saying not that it is correct but that it is the fault of the tradition of the British Government that not only the Republican population but now the Loyalist population can be seen coming more and more to the conclusion that reason holds no place in talks with the British Government. They listen only to force. Throughout our history, when the Government have ultimately listened to


nothing but force, when the Government have been brought to the negotiating table only by force, the people of Ireland have learned one simple lesson: that nothing beats determination.
The constitution Bill has been passed. We have had the Assembly elections. This Emergency Provisions Bill, the Minister said when opening the Third Reading, cannot of itself and by itself bring a solution. I should like to assure him that the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill, of itself and by itself, can and will destroy the constitution Bill.
Therefore, let the hon. Gentleman remember that down through the centuries of our history, whether it has been imprisonment, whether it has been death, no matter what the penalty, there has been within the people of Ireland a determination, whatever has sparked it off—as in 1968, for example, the right to vote and the right to decent housing. Whatever the circumstances, the fire has been lit aflame that the people of Ireland ultimately recognise that the problem in Ireland is British rule in Ireland and British domination of our affairs.
I am not saying that the British Government should go tomorrow, because they have left one hell of a mess to be cleaned up before they go. What I am saying, however, is that tomorrow the British Government would be well advised to say "We are getting out of Ireland."

Mr. Orme: I am following closely the remarks of the hon. Lady. Would she not agree that when the Labour Government sent in British troops in 1969 it was to protect the minority in Northern Ireland, and, secondly, that policies being advocated at the moment by Northern Ireland people—for example, UDI—could perhaps be as repressive as or more repressive to the minority than what she is now advocating?

Mrs. McAliskey: To take up those two point, I would certainly accept that when the Labour Government sent British troops into Northern Ireland, given the confused understanding in the Labour Party of its own political rôle, it thought that it was defending Catholics. What it was in fact doing was temporarily up

holding the Unionist system and defending British imperialism.
UDI might well be—probably would be—as repressive as anything that we have here. It is difficult to imagine what could be more repressive than what we have here. To the people in Northern Ireland who intend to continue the struggle for their political freedom it makes little odds who represses them or by what statutes they are repressed. What they remember is that despite centuries of repression we are still here. For 800 years successive British Governments have tried to stamp out the mentality that I represent, and I am standing here today. Stamp me out, stamp out the many people who think as I do, and the next generation will come up to swallow the next Government.
This Bill does nothing but build more prisons and prison camps in Ireland. It does nothing but fill more prisons and more prison camps in Ireland. I warn the Government that the more prisons they fill and the more prisoners they create, the more willing hands they give us to tear down the prisons and the system.

11.26 p.m.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: The hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster (Mrs. McAliskey) appeals to revolution against the democracy that spoke at the Assembly elections. There the people of Northern Ireland utterly repudiated everything that she said in the House this evening.
I do not quarrel with the hon. Lady's taking us back into medieval times. The Irish have enough sense of history, the English have too little, and one of my quarrels with direct rule and with the constitution Bill as it stands is that it places Northern Ireland under Poynings Law.
The hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) spoke of deficiencies in the Bill and of the right and desire of the House to examine it critically. Everything said in these debates by the hon. Gentleman has been motivated by principles which he has applied to this dreadful problem. The hon. Gentleman's report of his visit to Maze prison shows that his public-spiritedness is


coupled with humanity. The hon. Gentleman is anxious, and so is the House, to ensure that the measures that are necessary to be taken are taken with due regard for the rights, so far as they can be preserved, of the individual caught up in these terrible times.
It is right that there should be no impatience if the debate goes on for a little while longer, because the House of Commons should scrutinise with vigilance, and even with suspicion, a measure which limits the liberty of the subject and trial by jury in a part of the United Kingdom. This measure is unpalatable to the House, but it is a measure which, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State said, is necessary, and anyone who says that it is not is indifferent to the suffering of our fellow subjects across the Irish Channel who are being, or may be, terrorised by racketeering gangs which use crime for political ends or commit crimes under the mask of politics.
At the beginning of the debate the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) seemed a little lacking in imagination. He appeared to be sceptical of the intimidation to which our fellow subjects across the Irish Channel can fall victim. Perhaps a lack of imagination can be an advantage if one is called upon to be a Crown witness or a juror in Northern Ireland.
I agree with the historical research of the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster when she said that one reason for the plantations was the difficulty in finding juries which would convict. This is said to be one of the reasons for the plantation of King's County and Queen's County and even of Ulster itself.
The hon. Lady spoke of imperialist repression in Northern Ireland, but it is a fact of the present day that some of the worst repression in the world is undertaken by post-colonial Governments.
We are concerned with the detention of human beings, fellow citizens, in Northern Ireland, and when we are speaking of the detention or internment of individuals it does not make much difference whether we are speaking of special or emergency powers to those who are caught up in them; it does not make much difference whether it is the Offences Against the State Act south of the border.
We should not be too insular and we should reckon with the fact that order and peace have to be kept differently in different parts of the British Isles. And let hon. Members not be too lofty: let us recognise that human beings are involved in all this, that mistakes can be, and probably will be made. But let us also say that there is a certain cosmetic jurisprudence in the Bill. Do hon. Members not like the phrase? I am saying that some of the things done under the old Stormont are now being done, but we are doing them slightly differently.
In some ways I prefer the rugged and even brutal arguments of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) to the shuttlecock and battledore of hon. and learned Members on both sides of the House and in the Standing Committee, on which I was not privileged to serve. It is possible that the time will come when emergency provisions of this distasteful kind will be required on even this side of St. George's Channel; I hope not. But it is a fact that those who talk revolution on the other side of the channel see advantage not only in so-called Catholic ghettos on that side, but in coloured ghettos on this side. It is part of the doctrine of the revolutionaries on both sides.
The Bill is necessary; the Bill is unpalatable. It is necessary for the defence of Northern Ireland. Let us hope that measures of this kind will never be necessary for the defence of Great Britain.

11.33 p.m.

Mr. Fitt: There have been references during the day to the constitution Bill and we have been told that it would give politics a chance to operate again in Northern Ireland. We have also been told that this Bill is complementary to the constitution Bill.
I do not see it as such. This Bill is in violent contradiction to every idea of making politics work in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) has just admitted that the Bill repeats the Special Powers Act, and it retains the most obnoxious of the provisions of that Act.
But even when we had the Special Powers Act most trials in Northern Ireland were under the jury system. Even


persons charged under that Act had their case heard before a judge and jury, although there were instances when that was not so. What we now have is an addition to the repressive measures of that Act. The Bill legalises the indiscriminate searching of any home in Northern Ireland. It legalises the indiscriminate arresting of anyone in Northern Ireland.
Before the Bill, it was possible to put a case to the court if it was thought that charges had been made illegally. What we have done in this legislation is to legalise every act of every policeman, every soldier, everyone remotely connected with the security forces. There will be no redress for an aggrieved or innocent individual if he decides to take his case to court.
By this legislation we have abolished the whole concept of British law in Northern Ireland as we have hitherto known it. It has taken a thousand years to build up the British judicial system, which in many respects is the envy of the world. This legislation has taken much less time to abolish that system. It would be a very real emergency that would in any way justify such a dramatic change in the judicial system that we have known.
During the debates on the constitution Bill I said that I hoped that there would be political movement in Northern Ireland that would bring to an end the violence we have had to live with for so long. This Bill is an incitement to violence. We once had on the statute book in Northern Ireland an Act called the Incitement to Hatred Act. This Bill is an incitement to violence. Far from stopping violence, it will create it at a time when we are desperately trying to stop it.
I have no hesitation in saying that if this Bill is acted upon, and I hope it will not be, it will sow the seeds of a bitterness and hatred hitherto unknown in the island of Ireland. We have come to the end of the debate on the Bill here. We have fought it tenaciously. I have expressed my opposition to almost every

clause, comma and sentence. Representing a Northern Irish constituency and Irish people, I know what can be brought about by the implementation of repressive legislation. This Bill will go down in the record of Irish history as being yet another coercion Act. The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mrs. McAliskey) said that coercionists do not succeed in Ireland, but bring only failure and tragedy in their wake.

In a few minutes this Bill will have left this House. I advise the Minister and others responsible for implementing its provisions to make certain that it does not ally itself to the disaster brought about in Northern Ireland when internment was introduced. I urge the hon. Gentleman to pay more attention to trying to make the constitution Bill a reality. By implementing some of its provisions it may be possible, although I have serious doubts, to bring peace to Northern Ireland. If this Bill is acted upon it can only bring further untold tragedy to Northern Ireland.

11.40 p.m.

Mr. Wellbeloved: As the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) said, in a few miutes the Division bells will ring, and I want to explain why I as an English Member will stand with the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mrs. McAliskey) as a Teller for the Noes.
The Englishman has not been born who can solve the problems of Ireland. When we pass British laws to try to deal with an essentially Irish problem we are defying the whole course of history and refusing to recognise the realities. Just as on the Northern Ireland Constitution Bill I found myself in the Lobby with the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr), I shall be in the Lobby tonight with the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster because I believe that we should relinquish British power in Northern Ireland, bring home our troops and let the Irish people themselves find a solution to their own problems.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 58, Noes 6.

Division No. 190.]
AYES
[11.40 p.m.


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Biggs-Davison, John
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)


Atkins, Humphrey
Chapman, Sydney
Emery, Peter


Awdry, Daniel
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy


Benyon, W.
Cormack, Patrick
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)




Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Shersby, Michael


Fortescue, Tim
Miscampbell, Norman
Soref, Harold


Fowler, Norman
Moate, Roger
Speed, Keith


Fox, Marcus
Molyneaux, James
Stanbrook, Ivor


Green, Alan
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Sutcliffe, John


Havers, Sir Michael
Murton, Oscar
Tebbit, Norman


Hawkins, Paul
Nott, John
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Hunt, John
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Welder, David (Clitheroe)


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Weatherill, Bernard


Kilfedder, James
Raison, Timothy
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Kinsey, J. R.
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Redmond, Robert



Knox, David
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


McMaster, Stanley
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Mr. Michael Jopling and


Maginnis, John E.
Russell, Sir Ronald
Mr. John Stradling Thomas


Mather, Carol
Shelton, William (Clapham)



NOES


Davidson, Arthur
Kaufman, Gerald
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


English, Michael
Kerr, Russell
Mrs Bernadette McAliskey and


Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)
Stallard, A. W.
Mr. James Wellbeloved.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time and passed.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to order [22nd March],

That the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Cyprus) Order 1973 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 11th June.—[Mr. John Stradling Thomas.]

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to order [22nd March],

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Finland) Order 1973 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 11th June.—[Mr. John Stradling Thomas.]

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to order [22nd March],

That the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (France) Order 1973 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 11th June.—[Mr. John Stradling Thomas.]

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to order [22nd March],

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Jamaica) Order 1973 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 11th June.—[Mr. John Stradling Thomas.]

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to order [22nd March],

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation

Relief (Taxes on Income) (Malaysia) Order 1973, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 18th June.—[Mr. John Stradling Thomas.]

Question agreed to.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. John Stradling Thomas.]

ACCIDENT PREVENTION

11.49 p.m.

Mr. Donald Coleman: This afternoon, I attended the funeral of some young victims of a fatal road accident that took place last week. I witnessed the anguish and sadness of those bereaved by this tragedy—an experience that is always present when an accident results in death, as is too often the case.
I am reminded of a definition of an accident as an unexpected happening. Thus, if accidents were expected, fewer would be likely to happen. I am sure that if the young people of whom I have spoken and countless others involved in accidents had expected that they would be involved in them, they would have avoided the situations that led to their accidents.
I wish to draw attention to the need for greater attention to be paid to accidents and accident situations. In doing so, I shall be reflecting the opinions of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, which has expressed to me its concern about the number of major disasters and emergencies that have taken


place in the public sector and which give rise to public alarm and anxiety.
In spite of existing legislation in some cases and the need for better legislation in others, the nature of this public anxiety and the inability of Government Departments to act speedily and in a manner likely to reassure and give confidence makes necessary, in my view and that of RoSPA, the office of a watchdog in matters of public safety. Such an office must be able to cut across the slow machinery of Governmental inquiry and investigation, being able to order immediate and far-reaching searches to be made, with the authority to identify responsibility and blame.
Such activity as this would require ministerial powers and should include a brief covering all aspects of public safety. irrespective of the responsibilities of Government departments. There have been certain instances in which the supervision of a watchdog Minister would have avoided disasters like those on which RoSPA has commented in the past—Aberfan, the recently publicised problem of poison dumping, Battersea Park, Ibrox Park and the road tanker accidents.
Fortunately, no serious accident took place during the recent gas strike, but no one can view with much satisfaction the arrangements made by the authorities to see that people, especially old people. knew what to do when the gas went off.
The problem is that many safety aspects are already covered by Government Departments—road safety by the Department of the Environment and industrial safety by the Department of Employment and the Department of Trade and Industry, for example. Aspects of safety of the aged come under the Home Office and child safety education is the responsibility of the Department of Education and Science, while the hygiene of premises comes under the Department of Health and Social Security.
Although it may be said that certain advantages accrue from the fragmentation of responsibilities in the rôle of Government, the lack of overall responsibility shows how easy it was for the accidents mentioned not to have been prevented. The Minister is aware, as we all are, of the thoroughness of the work done by RoSPA. But no matter

how thorough the work of that organisation may be, RoSPA has no power to legislate where legislation is required, nor has it power to enforce when enforcement is necessary.
The society has, however, the power to recommend. In the past the society has made representations, and it was believed that it was appropriate that such representations about the appointment of a watchdog for public safety should be made to the Secretary of State for the Environment. Tonight, I am pleased that the debate is to be answered by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Civil Service Department. He and I know that earlier this week we suspected that one of his colleagues in the Government would be answering the debate. This, coupled with the experience of RoSPA as to whom representations should be made on the subject of a watchdog for safety, goes a long way to proving the need for such a Minister—a Minister who would be able to cut through the red tape and the jungle of powers and responsibilities of various Ministries and authorities.
Returning to the representations of RoSPA, these were rejected—ironically, at a time when events were proving the need for making such an appointment. The main reason given for the rejection of the representations was the alleged cover of all fields of safety by Government Departments or their appropriate inspectorates. A point has been missed here. It is not that there is not some kind of responsibility. The complaint is about the quality and co-ordination of the responsibility.
A subsidiary reason that was given for the rejection was the view of the Department of the Environment that the watchdog concept was neither politically expedient nor administratively practicable. One thing that I hope that the Minister will be able to tell me tonight is that he rejects outright the suggestion that political expediency is taken into account when evaluating this proposal that RoSPA and I are making.
The question of administrative practicability is challenged because, following the original RoSPA representations, two significant developments have taken place. The first is the publication of the Rohens Report and its recommendations for a central authority to cover the whole field


of safety and health at work. The second development is the appointment of a Director-General of Fair Trading in the matter of consumer protection.
The ambit of the Robens Report and that committee's recommendations have a close parallel in terms of public safety. The Robens Report deals with industrial accidents, but much of the thinking can likewise be applied in principle. Furthermore, it shows that Government can accept an authority which cuts across conventional departmental working.
The concept of consumer protection is another area in which the Government have created a powerful "across the board" organisation with substantial powers to protect the public. Public safety is unquestionably just as important. It is manifest that the Government have a responsibility for public safety, which they have not been able fully to discharge. It is equally clear that the Government are capable of taking the necessary action to deal with exceptional situations. They must also do so in the case of public safety.
It is the experience of RoSPA that the Government have allowed themselves to be handicapped by constitutional procedures that prohibit them from dealing at a sufficiently high level with urgent matters of public safety. Many matters of public safety are not receiving the priority treatment they warrant, and too often it is left to the next disaster to remind us of the extent and seriousness of these deficiencies in the present system.
I urge this policy upon the Government and ask the Minister to urge his right hon. Friends to give it the serious attention that it warrants. First, the safety of the individual and the prevention of accidents in the public sector is a matter of such importance that it warrants attention at an appropriately high level beyond the current departmental responsibility.
Secondly, the Government should ensure that all aspects of safety in the public sector are covered by the necessary legislation and made effective by the requisite powers of enforcement. The duties at present exercised by various Government Departments or divisions, or not at all, should he exercised at ministerial level through one overriding authority.
Thirdly, such a Minister must, in addition to any specific responsibilities or to the control of specialist inspectorates, be primarily concerned to prevent, eliminate or investigate accident situations.
I realise that the implementation of this policy is for the Government as a whole and do not expect from the Parliamentary Secretary either an acceptance or a rejection of the aspects of policy that I put forward tonight. However, I hope that by ventilating these ideas tonight we shall have started something which will bring about a situation where accidents become expected by the individual and by the Government and as a result are prevented from happening and thereby eliminated, and so will end the sadness and anguish, an experience of which I witnessed this afternoon.

12.2 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Civil Service Department (Mr. Kenneth Baker): The hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman) has cast his net very wide. I welcome the opportunity to answer the interesting case that he has developed.
I should first explain why it is I who am answering the debate. The Civil Service Department bears responsibility for the machinery of government and for determining the responsibilities of various Departments and, therefore, of Ministers. As part of the hon. Gentleman's suggestion involves establishing a new Ministry and a co-ordinating Minister, it falls to me to reply.
The views that I shall express in reply to the hon. Gentleman owe nothing to political expediency—that was a phrase the hon. Gentleman used—because if, in the end, I disagree with him I am sure he will accept that there is no difference between us as to the objective. We all want to reduce the risk of accidents wherever they arise, but there is room for argument on how we can best organise ourselves to achieve that aim. That is what the hon. Gentleman concentrated on this evening and it is what RoSPA has advocated.
The kernel of the hon. Gentleman's argument is that all the duties in relation to safety and accidents that are at present exercised by various Government Departments should be transferred to a new


Minister who would be a sort of safety "watchdog". His main function would be to prevent accidents and eliminate situations that might give rise to them. To carry out this rôle he would have the necessary powers of inspection and enforcement and he would have the considerable responsibility of proposing any changes in the law which seemed desirable to him and his officials. This would be a major change in the machinery of government and it might be helpful if I first set out the reasoning which lies behind the present allocation of departmental responsibilities for safety.
At present, Government Departments are organised so that each provides in the word's of the Haldane Committee of 1918
a particular service to the community as a whole".
So, there are Ministries for education, health, employment and so an each serving the whole community. The main advantages that successive Governments have seen in applying this functional principle of Government organisation are the avoidance of fragmentation and overlap in responsibilities. Experts can concentrate on particular subjects in particular Departments and authorities. This is particularly important in the case of safety.
So much for the theory. The hon. Member is not, I think, asking us to depart from this functional principle of departmental organisation. He is asking that safety should be considered as a function in its own right and that all the responsibilities for safety now exercised by a number of Ministers should be disentangled from the other responsibilities of those Ministers and concentrated in one place under one man in one Department.
Whether public safety can rightly be called a function of government is not, I think, at issue between us. The question is whether the functions should be unified and exercised by one Minister or dispersed as at present. That is not a point of principle, it is a question of what is sensible in practice and it is at this paint that we begin to disagree.
There is a considerable degree of coordination already and this is to be substantially increased in the fairly near

future. The hon. Member pointed out that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment had recently published a consultative document setting out proposals for legislation to implement the report of the Robens Committee on Safety and Health at Work. Under the proposed legislation we should establish a new organisation, a commission for safety and health at work, under which present arrangements for the administration and enforcement of legislation concerned with safety and health of the worker in the workplace would be brought together.
The example of safety and health at work shows that we are ready to introduce arrangements bringing together responsibility for related subjects in the interests of improved co-ordination. But where such responsibilities are drawn together it is essential that there should be extensive common ground between them. In the case of the proposed authority for safety and health at work, we are concerned with the safety of people at their work, at the bench in the factory or in the office, the safety industrial processes and the public who may be affected by them. We are concerned with relations between employers and their staff, and the responsibility of employers for safety matters. These are all closely related subjects. But even here, where there are special circumstances, as in the agricultural industry, for example, separate arrangements are being made and they will not come under the commission.
Turning from safety at work to other aspects and to illustrate that we are not hostile to a certain degree of co-ordination, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary already has wide responsibilities for matters relating to consumer and public safety and fire prevention. He has a residual responsibility for questions in this field which do not fall within the specialised responsibilities of other Ministers. Taken together, these responsibilities of my right hon. Friend cover much of the field which the hon. Member has discussed.
If I may now turn to the other Departments, the Department of the Environment has a responsibility for the building regulations because it is the sponsoring Department for the construction industry. Because it is responsible for roads and


road transport it is responsible for road and vehicle safety. Because it is responsible for environmental matters it was the Department which, 18 months ago, initiated the legislation on the dumping of poison wastes. That is a good example of how quickly a Department can react. The legislation was passed through the House very quickly when it became evident that legislation was needed.
The Department of Health and Social Security, as part of its responsibility for the health service, has responsibilities for safety in hospitals. The Department of Education and Science similarly has responsibilities in relation to the safety of schools and takes a close and continuing interest in the education of children in matters of safety.
In all these cases safety is one aspect of a wider responsibility, and it is very difficult to see how these responsibilities could be disentangled as the hon. Member suggests, or indeed, if they could, whether there would be any significant advantages over the present system. It is possible that such a reorganisation would even create more problems than it solved. For example, if we created a Minister for Safety, answerable at the Dispatch Box on matters of safety, there would very soon be problems of overlapping responsibility between him and other Ministers. Could the Department of Trade and Industry, for example, properly exercise its overall responsibility for shipping and aviation if aircraft and marine safety fell to another Minister?
Looking at it another way, we see that there is obvious good sense in bringing together the responsibility for road construction and the responsibility for road safety. This ensures a very necessary co-ordination in fields that are closely related. The question is essentially an identity of interest—of whether there is a commonality of circumstances that would improve the present system that each Department has for dealing with the safety matters that come under its own responsibilities.
I know that the hon. Gentleman has spoken with great feeling on the subject, coming from the unhappy events he has had to witness today, but I do not believe he has shown that there is a need for a Minister with these co-ordinating responsibilities. At the operational level,

when an accident occurs the need is for the co-ordination of local services, not a co-ordinating Minister. I have in mind the tragedies the hon. Gentleman mentioned—Ibrox Park or the Trident crash, near Heathrow—where the necessity was to marshal local services as quickly as possible—fire brigades, ambulances, police forces, anybody who could come to the aid of the people who were suffering. Where Government Departments are involved—the coastguards, the air accident inspectors, the Railway Inspectorate—they move with great speed and authority, backed by the strong and informed support of the departmental Minister concerned.
For major disasters, like Aberfan or the "Torrey Canyon," if necessary a Minister can be given a temporary responsibility for co-ordinating the relief exercise. In the case of the "Torrey Canyon" I think it was the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) who was given the responsibility of co-ordinating the relief exercise when the tanker ran aground. Fortunately, such accidents are rare, and do not in themselves require a permanent ministerial appointment.
Therefore, the only possible case for a Minister is that he would lend greater impetus to the task of preventing accidents, that he would be thinking about it all the time and would be concerned with it. I have some doubts about that. Disasters in recent years, some of which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, have resulted not from a lack of ministerial co-ordination or direction but rather from particular causes which have been identified.
The hon. Gentleman started by defining an accident as an unexpected happening. Whether one has a Minister responsible for safety and answering to accidents, or the present departmental responsibilities, it still seems to me that it is very difficult to anticipate any of the possible circumstances that we have been discussing—the unexpected happening. At worst, if there were to be a Minister of Safety, such an appointment might, with the passage of time, lead other Departments to relax their efforts in their own field. Even if this did not happen, it seems to me that the varied nature of the problems; the workload they would impose; and the separation


of safety from related work in Departments would all substantially reduce the Minister's effectiveness. He could not. for example, have the specialised interest in aircraft safety that the Minister for Aerospace can have, or in the agricultural use of pesticides that the Minister of Agriculture has, dealing with cases day by day. On the contrary, his effort would be diffused and fragmented. In our view, for one Minister to take over such specialised and largely unrelated responsibilities would be an impossible task. They have little in common and can be handled more effectively as an integral part of Departments' wider responsibilities.
For all these reasons, and particularly taking into account the likely advent of the new commission and the wide responsibilities of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, I am bound to say that the case for a Minister with all-embracing responsibilities for safety does not seem to me to have been made out.
I hope that the Government will not be charged with complacency. That is far from the burden of my remarks. The Government are, of course, always seeking to improve public safety, as have previous Governments, and have taken action to this end on a wide range of problems. For example, the new regulations on the compulsory wearing of crash helmets should reduce some of the appalling tragedies that occur particularly to young people, and which could save as many as 300–400 deaths or serious injuries each year. The massive "clunk, click" publicity campaign on the wearing of seat belts will, we hope, secure major improvements in road safety. The Department of the Environment is giving high priority to the encouragement of the reduction of environmental pollution. All those measures contribute to our safety.
At work, safety regulations have been introduced for drilling rigs that protect both the workers on the rigs and shipping in the vicinity. The Factory Inspectorates are placing more emphasis on selective visits to premises and areas of concern involving hazards and high risks to persons and surrounding property. Only last month—in fact, on 21st June—new regulations came into force controlling highly flammable liquids and liquified petroleum gases, which will affect a large proportion of industrial premises.
If, in any of these areas, improvements are needed in policies and practices—for example, if new powers are needed—there seems to me no reason for not introducing the necessary changes through the existing and planned machinery.
I hope that I have answered all the matters that have been raised by the hon. Gentleman. I appreciate that he raised them in a constructive manner. However, I do not believe that he has made out his case to have a Minister with overall responsibility for accidents and safety. The circumstances surrounding potential accidents are so varied and wide, and go so deeply into the individual work of each Department, that the responsibility for accidents is best left with the individual Departments.
I do not believe that a co-ordinated rôle would improve the efficiency and dedication of the staff working on accident elimination and all the possible circumstances in which accidents can arise in each of the Departments. I have listened to the hon. Gentleman's arguments with interest, but I do not find myself in agreement with him.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes past Twelve o'clock.